PDA

View Full Version : Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...



RamboIV
11-27-2009, 04:54 PM
Ugh! I just received and email stating that I have violated the copyrights of Cass Country in my Eagles: History and Critiques series and youtube has taken down the entire series and given me a second "strike" against my youtube account -- the first strike was a VERY poor quality, 30 second cell phone video of "Boys of Summer" from the Eagles Milwaukee concert in September.

So now my whole series, which had a total over 60,000 views on youtube has been blocked. And I do not believe it will be coming back. Now, I know I technically violated copyright, but isn't there a "fair use" law that enables me to use video and audio for a review like mine? Either way, I've heard that Henley's publisher is doing some sort of crackdown and my videos haven't been the only ones hit. I imagine this is what happens when he isn't busy with the Eagles...

Well, I didn't put months of work into that series just so they could delete it. I'll be reposting the videos eventually at Dailymotion (where the Full length Part VII video currently is) and maybe blip. Otherwise, I believe I have found a glitch -- if you click "play" on the embedded videos on my introduction thread (https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1378), it seems you can still watch them. It is probably only a matter of time before that stops working too.

Anyone else having similar problems?

AzEaglesFan
11-27-2009, 05:04 PM
Sorry Rambo but they are all gone or I just can't get them to work

EagleLady
11-27-2009, 05:15 PM
Youtube Sucks when they take down good videos.

Freypower
11-27-2009, 05:25 PM
It's Cass County Music, Don's publshing company,that wanted them taken down. You cannnot blame YouTube for complying. I notice that Red Cloud Music doesn't seem bothered.

EagleLady
11-27-2009, 05:34 PM
I blame The company that wanted them taken down. How do they expect people to listen to their artists if they don't want their videos on Youtube?

Freypower
11-27-2009, 05:37 PM
Yes, EL, but that isn't what you said. You said 'YouTube sucks when they take down videos' as if it were YouTube's fault.

And it is Don's company that we are talking about here. Nobody else's.

EagleLady
11-27-2009, 05:39 PM
If Youtube wanted to, they'd refuse to Pull videos.

ETA: It doesn't matter whose company it is. It is horse manure either way

Freypower
11-27-2009, 05:48 PM
And be threatened with a massive lawsuit?

EagleLady
11-27-2009, 05:50 PM
It'd be worth it to me. No one wants to buy a CD Without first listening to the songs, and they can't do it without Youtube

Freypower
11-27-2009, 07:00 PM
And how many of the songs on Expando are on YouTube? Precisely none.

If I want a CD I don't need to see a video to decide that I want it. This was the case both for Expando and the new Knopfler album. I didn't even look to see if there were any new Knopfler videos on YouTube before I ordered it (and I still haven't looked). If you like an artist enough, you don't need YouTube. I am older than you - I am from the era when videos were not necessary for you to decide whether or not you liked a song or wanted to buy an album.

Troubadour
11-27-2009, 07:13 PM
When I buy a CD, most of the excitement comes from not knowing 90% of the songs on that album. It's something to take home and relish - hearing new songs for the very first time, and the anticipation of discovering (if I'm lucky) some songs that might have a big impact upon my life. Songs that might make me think, or stay with me for years, helping me through the bad times, or gearing me up for the good ones. Youtube has many great uses, but I certainly don't need to hear an album before I buy the CD, or watch a film before I purchase the DVD. The mystery of what lies within the cover is the best part. (If I didn't think this way, I'd never have bought Hell Freezes Over on a whim, because I'd heard Take It To The Limit and decided I might like the Eagles! Thank goodness I took the 'risk'.)

Sorry that your videos have been taken down, Rambo, but like FP, I'm not surprised that youtube complied immediately with Cass County Music!

EagleLady
11-27-2009, 07:26 PM
Guess I am in the minority that want to Listen before I buy.

Freypower
11-27-2009, 07:35 PM
EL, I know what you're saying and I understand that approach. It's entirely logical. I would perhaps feel that way if I were discussing an artist I was unfamiliar with. But for people I know and trust, I don't need to see a video first.

Going back to when The Long Run came out, I was at university in Canberra and had no access to a TV. I didn't see the videos for TLR, ICTYW and ITC until about 6 months afterwards (as for my favourite song on that album, unbelievably of course there was no video for it at all). As for the Hotel California video I did not see that until November 1978 - only two years after it was released. I know that times have changed and people now expect immediate satisfaction. Perhaps I should be delving more into YouTube to familiarise myself with new songs - but it is not what I am used to doing.

MikeA
11-27-2009, 07:36 PM
An interesting conflict pointed out by Freypower and Eaglelady. I'm in between the two extremes concerning whether or not I want a video or whatever.

With a group that I am familiar with such as the Eagles, I don't need no preview to determine whether or not to buy. I'd buy it even if I never listened to it just so I could keep a collection going.

But with a new group or Artist, I want to HEAR something before I invest. Thankfully, just about all of the ones that I've had questions about, I've found on MySpace or Facebook with plenty of previews of their music. I speak specifically of Dilana's new "Insideout" and The Band of Heathen's "One Foot In The Ether".

Now y'all know I love Dilana, but I'm really crazy about only one song on her new album that I'm interested in, but because of that one song, I'll probably buy the CD. Or at least download it from iTunes or Amazon.

The Band Of Heathen's, well dang...there isn't a song on that album that I don't like. They had like 5 or 6 of them posted on their site and believe me, that was more than enough for me to know I had to have that CD.

As for Henley and his cow-patty record company, If he want's to prevent people from listening to his music...I recon it's his right or the "right" of the company that he owns to forbid any of it being published on the web. I think it's a BAD decision, but it is his decision. One has to respect that.

bernie's bender
11-27-2009, 10:44 PM
it all gets different when the song or performance is yours... meaning, you made it.

I own some land (an example here, bear with me)... I can't be there all the time and watch to make sure no one ever trespasses and goes hunting on the property..... But, if enough people trespass and they do it often enough and they go in the same places... eventually, I can lose my rights to the 'path'.

some states call it 'an apparent easement'. If you think what I'm saying is kind of nuts... My mom lost a pretty good chunk of property and ultimately had to pay not only legal bills to fight for her property (and lose) but she also had to make improvements so that folks could use the land for a road that bisected part of her land.

Copyright is like that. If you aren't super diligent about protecting it, you demonstrate by inaction that the property has no value and eventually you can lose all rights to it. Once it is 'valueless' anyone can bundle it and sell it.

We are all fans of the Eagles and clearly we value their ability and want to honor their art and defend their right to make their rightful wage from their work. I really would love if all the old concerts were released and we could all see all of the videos, but I understand that when they don't protect their rights... by law, they are still acting by not acting... and the result is---> lost revenues and loss of power to enforce copyright rule.

I love when I find some rare video... but, I also understand when it is taken down... we live in a weird time with lots of old law and lots of new technology.... I bear no ill will toward people protecting their property and since I have seen good folks lose their property... I have to admit that I lean toward folks who protect their rights... even when it inconveniences me.

RamboIV
11-28-2009, 06:46 AM
I'll start by stating I understand the value and importance of copyright, and I do not support stealing music. Although, I must admit, I am guilty of doing it on occasion. Very rarely, actually. Usually if my local Walmart doesn't carry what I'm looking for -- (does anyone carry Joe Walsh's "Got Any Gum?" anymore?) -- and I don't want to wait to order it online. And I only take albums from artists that I have already purchased music from. (For instance, I bought 4 AC/DC albums and then torrented a few others.) It's not much of a justification, but it is a Hell of a lot better from what most of my peers do.

Anyway, my point being is that I would support a musician finding an official music video that he/she is saving for a DVD or an audio file off of one of his/her albums and demand it be taken down. An official release should be heard only on the radio or the album (or the artist's website), not on a website like youtube. However, when it comes to a live recording, I don't understand the outrage -- unless it is off of a professional DVD, the quality is most likely low and live versions don't sound the same as the studio versions, so people aren't going to choose that version over the official release. Also, except for the VERY FEW people who rip mp3s from youtube, no one moves music from youtube onto their ipod or music collection and chooses not to buy the official release. So I guess my point is that I feel that "official" releases (studio albums, live albums, concert DVDs, etc) should definitely be protected and taken off sites like youtube, but bootlegs or other unofficial live recordings should be left alone, because at the end of the day, they just end up being free advertising.

Now, when it comes to review series like mine, there should be (and I believe there is) a Fair Use law that enables me to use small snippets of official releases for the purpose of review and commentary (or satire). This is certainly not stealing music -- it is simply being used to contextualize a conversation about the music itself.

Well that's my rant... And it is all just opinion, but that's where I stand. But then again, I'm biased as Hell.

bernie's bender
11-28-2009, 01:58 PM
We all make our choices.

The law is designed to fit all when we are all decidedly different and the way we approach the world is different.

I think if you step back from your previous post for a couple of days and then come back and read it as dispassionately as possible, you'll see how arbitrary it is and how much rationalization exists there.

Analogies tend to clog up getting to the truth (and I'm totally guilty of using them trying to shed light quickly and simply only to discover the confuse the issue.)

If you genuinely think that what you are/were doing is within the law, you can set up your own website and create an entire review site... then post pointers to it from youtube. Folks do it all the time. Then you control (and accept) the responsibility for the content.

You make some interesting points about video quality etc... If I could get my hands on some specific shows from an era where the quality was lower and there were some other problems... but, I could at least see them... I'd pay a good sum for it...

If you've heard stephen stills 'roll tape' it has tons of problems... but has sold really well because there is an audience for that material... the viewership of your youtube site shows that there is an audience for what you are doing... is it the commentary? the content? a combination?

Youtube listens to the rightful owner of the material and in order to continue their business, they pull it. Maybe if you became the purveyor of the material, the problem would go away? At this point, youtube has liability, the publisher has responsibility (legal/business) to the artist, you have very little, to none. When that responsibility and liability gets spread evenly across the folks involved... then I think I'd lean to your side.

sodascouts
11-28-2009, 07:25 PM
I can see both sides regarding recorded material - if your entire album is available to stream online, why would people want to buy it? I get why a musician would want to pull that. However, in the case of Henley and the Eagles, I daresay the majority of their demographic does not know how to download streaming videos from YouTube, then covert those videos to audio in order to burn them to CDs. Still, as I said, I understand the logic.

I can understand why Henley would pull material from Hell Freezes Over and Farewell 1, because if people can see it for free, why would they buy it? That could hit him in the wallet. Bizarrely, however, HFO (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eagles+hell+freezes+over&search_type=&aq=0&oq=eagles+hell+freez) and F1 material (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eagles+farewell+1&search_type=&aq=f) has been left alone, while fan vids have been pulled. What's the logic there?

I don't get why Henley pulls down live material, unless he fears it will affect ticket sales to his shows, but I don't think that's very rational when the quality is so poor. Poor quality live recordings certainly would not prevent a person from buying the CD. Quite the opposite.

I don't understand the pulling of MTV videos that he released to television in order to promote his albums. Wasn't the whole point of those videos to allow people to hear the song so that they would buy the album? Nobody had to pay to watch MTV. What's the difference?

I don't understand the pulling of appearances on television programs that he doesn't even have the distribution rights to. Apparently he disapproves just as strongly of television appearance uploads as he does of live uploads, though. Both are equally offensive.

I certainly don't understand the pulling of videos of people strumming Hotel California in their living room (like here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQQPMjDse-E)). That's the kind of thing that makes me shake my head because I cannot perceive ANY benefit to him whatsoever of being THAT heavy-handed. In fact, I have rarely seen any musicians go THAT far.

Henley is self-sabotaging. He is too stuck in the past to realize that YouTube can be used as an asset. He views new media with fear and loathing and has closed his mind to its virtues.

Instead of building a raft so he can ride the waves, he lifts his fist to the ocean and tells himself he can block the rush of oncoming water if he just brings that fist down hard enough. So he winds up soggy, sputtering, and frustrated.

It doesn't have to be that way. YouTube could be his friend. I wish he could see that.

As far as we fans go, I think it's hypocritical to eagerly watch the videos while simultaneously condemning people for posting them.

In fact, speaking of hypocrisy, the idea for the Eagles' lead single How Long was a YouTube post of a 1973 performance of it...

Oh well. In the end we have to accept it when he pulls down the fanvids. We don't have to like it, but we can't do anything about it.

Bender, your perspective about having to be hyper-diligent on YouTube to keep the copyright from being diluted is interesting, but it seems that such dilution isn't really that severe -there are many artists who are not hyper-diligent about YouTube but are still quite successful.

MikeA
11-28-2009, 07:48 PM
Wow! Let me get this straight Soda. Someone picked up a guitar in his home, turned on a vid cam and recorded himself doing a cover of "Hotel California", posted it on YouTube and had it pulled?

First off, I find that very hard to believe at face value. I'd want to know if it was YouTube's over reaction. Or if it was some agent of Henley or Eagles who was acting independently of the desires of Mr. Henley. Or if it was direct command by Henley through "Cass" that resulted in the removal of the video.

I am no lawyer. But I do not see how you, me or anyone else's playing of a hit song is going to be a violation of anyone's "rights" as long as there is no intent to profit from it. From that standpoint, YouTube is the only "party" who stood to profit from the video....it's presence might make YouTube more popular. It certainly would do nothing "financially" for the amateur who recorded it under those particular circumstances.

Now, if it turned out that it really was at the instruction of Henley or his company, Cass Country Music with his knowledge, then I have to really question my loyalty to any entity who would take such a petty action.

I am truly appalled at this. :sad:

Gosh, I wonder if Joe Walsh is going to make me remove that little riff of "Turn To Stone" in my signature? Nah, no chance. I don't think it is good enough for him to recognize as being His song.

bernie's bender
11-29-2009, 12:28 AM
hmmmm.... okay, so here is something that might surprise you...

Did you know when you go to a bar and hear a band play... the bar pays fees to cover the copyright? or that when you play a song on a jukebox... copyright gets paid?

it is true.

When OLGA (the online guitar archive) came out.. I loved it because it made is super simple to work up songs or the band to play... way less work and even when there were mistakes... it was still easier. not to mention, for once we had the lyrics right! it is gone now... but man, it was great... even though I knew it was 'illegal' most of the songs we wanted weren't available for sale.

But, publishing is where the money is at... if you let folks flaut the law, you are effectively giving permission... I'm sure the actual artists are taking the advice of their legal team and I'm sure their legal team isn't taking the risk of losing the publishing and the copyright on a cash cow until that cow is done giving milk (public domain)...

My niece is an attorney and we've talked about this at length... she pretty consistently says, "if someone gets a benefit without paying, they owe."

We might say that having a 'free' site where you review videos or strum hotel california there is no benefit for the person... the courts might see it differently... here's how.

I went to see the movie "the blind side" on thanksgiving night. I enjoyed it very much. We bought tickets for 18 people to go... we all loved it (okay, one of my brothers didn't, but he is grumpy) anyway, we were entertained and felt good as walked out.

When some folks make websites or youtube videos it makes them feel good... there is satisfaction in sharing for some folks. And, as the kudos roll in for their strumming or for providing old videos that people want to see, they receive compliments and their value (as a provider) is raised. By using other people's material, they have increased their own 'value' even though all they have effectively done is either the work of posting it or learning the song and strumming it.

That is a point of view that is not common, but it is what the issue is.

Someday, it will no longer be an issue as folks will have figured out the best way and people will accept things as they are... to be sure, the history of copyright does not run back to the magna carta (heck, america is named after the wrong people, but no one cares anymore)... but for now, I'm sure if someone was taking something that you made or owned and using it without permission... some of us would want to get paid for our innovations... some wouldn't care... to date, the split among people I know is: People who haven't made anything... don't care about getting paid and accept piracy. People who have written songs, software, created goods.. get really pissed when people steal it.

I have never shot at people when I found them hunting or trespassing on my land... but, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't furious with them.... if they had asked nicely, I may have even allowed for it, but since they assumed that I'd say no, they just did it anyway....

It'll be awhile until it is figured out...

sodascouts
11-29-2009, 12:29 AM
Wow! Let me get this straight Soda. Someone picked up a guitar in his home, turned on a vid cam and recorded himself doing a cover of "Hotel California", posted it on YouTube and had it pulled?

First off, I find that very hard to believe at face value. I'd want to know if it was YouTube's over reaction. Or if it was some agent of Henley or Eagles who was acting independently of the desires of Mr. Henley. Or if it was direct command by Henley through "Cass" that resulted in the removal of the video.

I am no lawyer. But I do not see how you, me or anyone else's playing of a hit song is going to be a violation of anyone's "rights" as long as there is no intent to profit from it. From that standpoint, YouTube is the only "party" who stood to profit from the video....it's presence might make YouTube more popular. It certainly would do nothing "financially" for the amateur who recorded it under those particular circumstances.

Now, if it turned out that it really was at the instruction of Henley or his company, Cass Country Music with his knowledge, then I have to really question my loyalty to any entity who would take such a petty action.

I am truly appalled at this. :sad:

Gosh, I wonder if Joe Walsh is going to make me remove that little riff of "Turn To Stone" in my signature? Nah, no chance. I don't think it is good enough for him to recognize as being His song.


Follow this link to see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQQPMjDse-E

And as proof that he's telling the truth, that the video was only of him strumming the song on his couch, check out all the other videos he's uploaded:

http://www.youtube.com/user/uncleparsnip

The entity who told YouTube to take down his video: Cass County Music.

MikeA
11-29-2009, 07:49 AM
Jeez Nancy, that is just WRONG. I only wish I was good enough to HURT the Eagles financially. Not that I'd want to hurt them. But I wish I were that good!

And BB, legally, I'm sure that your interpretation of the copyright law is right.

And I know that Bars pay a fee that eventually gets back to the owners of the publication rights of the music their musicians play. It's the same with sheet music for Churches. They pay a fee for the right to make copies of lyrics that they "hand out" to congregations to use in services.

But by using the argument that someone gained something from the song without paying for it....you couldn't listen to a recording by Eagles that you didn't purchase yourself but that someone else was playing for you on their home stereo system. The owner of the recording would be legal, but YOU wouldn't be because you hadn't PAID for the privilege of listening to it.

This could truly be "The Day The Music Died."

I agree with the laws on copyright concerning the copying of music as applied to the reproduction of recorded material. The artists do deserve the income from that. I agree with the laws concerning the copying of sheet music that the artists have created and authorized to be sold (song books, stuff like that).

But Amateur renditions of popular songs? I'm not talking about You taking a song and covering it in a bar somewhere (I would have said "I" or "ME" instead of "YOU", but I've listened to "You" and I've listened to "Me" and I can see You being able to do that; Not Me <LOL>). I can see profit in that both for You and for the Bar in that it could draw in more business.

No, I'm talking about You sitting down in the den and picking up a guitar and playing that song. I just can't see that as being a situation in which You are hurting anyone.

I know that I'm "in the wrong" here LEGALLY. But by the interpretation of the law a I see it being applied in your explanation and by the actions of Cass Country Music by telling YouTube to pull the vids, it is a violation of the law for someone even to freakin' "Hum" a song.

Seriously, "At what point does the use of recorded material become illegal?"

bernie's bender
11-29-2009, 03:07 PM
it is legal for you to listen to a friends cd. it is legal for you to have a party and play music without paying any additional fees.

just so you know. the law is really clear on those points. it is also legal to make copies of your music or 'rip' them and listen to them on your ipod.

ponder this (and I have thought about this a good deal and do not know the answer, even for myself.)

what makes someone sit in their livingroom and record their version of hotel california and then feel the need to post it on youtube? what is that all about?

what is the motivation? would it be as good if they made up their own song? sang a song in the public domain (like a hank williams song say?)

Why do we do it?

MikeA
11-29-2009, 04:08 PM
ponder this (and I have thought about this a good deal and do not know the answer, even for myself.)

what makes someone sit in their livingroom and record their version of hotel california and then feel the need to post it on youtube? what is that all about?

what is the motivation? would it be as good if they made up their own song? sang a song in the public domain (like a hank williams song say?)

Why do we do it?

That one's simple: VANITY.

bernie's bender
11-29-2009, 04:25 PM
That one's simple: VANITY.

could be.... and if you are right... vanity has a price tag.

and, when the actual artists says, "hey, not so fast, you gotta pay to play" it attacks vanity at its root... hence, the upset.

in a narcissistic age.... where it is all about 'me' having anyone tell you you can't be the star of the show... well, they are evil.

about a month ago we were playing on a saturday night and a group of 4 very cute, very drunk girls were in and they wanted their friend to come up and sing with us... okay, I said... here is our set list for our next set... which song do you wanna do? she laughed and took me aside and said, I'm way to drunk and I'm not that good of a singer, could you just tell me you can't let me up to sing?

So, I agreed. The other girls were PISSED. About halfway through the set one of them threw a drink in our direction (landing short of us) but broken glass and all that and some wet dancers.... they got 86'd but it was a weird deal...

As invested as I am in, say, the Eagles and their music and it being a big part of the soundtrack of my own life... it is there stuff... not mine. If I had written some of their songs.. I'd want to get paid if other people were going to benefit from it.... or I would at least want the option to give it away rather than have someone take it.

It just seems strange to want it for free...the Eagles have brought me so much pleasure over the years, I'm happy to pay them for that.. just as I was happy to pay at the theater to watch the "blind side"...

oh well.... we all have our ways of seeing it... I'm sure in a generation or so... this won't even be a conversation...

EagleLady
11-29-2009, 04:31 PM
Honestly, I can see your point BB but for those who can't afford CDs in this economy, Youtube is probably the best bet to listen to songs from a particular CD.

MikeA
11-29-2009, 05:48 PM
BB, You know the respect I have for you and I'm being totally sincere about that. You're a musician. Semi-pro if not professional with the talent to substantiate the attitude you present.

All the rest of us, the 99% who purchase musical instruments, are no where near as talented and are happy just banging away at a guitar, or drums, or piano, KNOWING we'll never make a commercial attempt at marketing our meager efforts in any shape form or fashion. We're never going to be performing at the Bullspit Bar, let alone Carnegie Hall or The Grand Ole Opry.

Oh, sorry, but I really didn't understand your point with the story about the 4 drunk girls. Was it that the girl they coerced into getting up on the stage didn't deserve to be there because she didn't have the talent? Or was it that they got 86'd for causing trouble when they threw their drinks at you?

Most of us couldn't put together a marketable lyric set or even one close to technically correct if our lives depended on it. We couldn't make a run through a song without a mistake that we couldn't cover up for love or money! Most of us have vocals that are average to poor at best! Thank God our lives do NOT depend on whatever it is we can do musically.

But, does that mean that we should not play or sing for the sake of our own Vanity? If that were the case, there would be a LOT of people out of work. Folks working for Fender, Gibson and Taylor to name a few. Recon the majority of their sales come from Professional Musicians? Wonder what percentage is of those making guitar purchases who have ever wrote or performed anything "original"?

And, if those making purchases could not legally play anything they didn't compose themselves, I wonder how many would go out and pay someone the price for a guitar, amp and mic? Specifically, that is what we are talking about isn't it? If you didn't write it, you can't sing it.

Oops...that just brought to mind a time in Jr. High when I played "House of the Rising Sun" at a school assembly! "They" didn't toss coins at me...they might have tossed eggs and tomatoes though. Maybe I should get in touch with Eric Berdon and send him a couple of bucks. But after looking it up, I lucked out. While Berdon with The Animals had a hit with it, the origin of the song is "unknown". Just an American Folk Song. So maybe I'm still a non-felon. WHEW!

I suspect that most bands got their start doing covers. I would imagine that they practice songs originated by someone else that they never performed live. Were they violating copyright laws since they never had the clubs paying for the rights to perform that song since they only did it in their garages?

Joe Walsh has said that he learned every Beatles song in their catalog. If he learned them, that implies he played them. I've only heard him perform one Beatles song "live" and that was "Something" that he accompanied Celine Dion on a Televised Special.

Or is this one of those things that everyone "does" and it's considered "okay" as long as they don't perform it to make a profit from it? I don't see any difference in playing by oneself for your own entertainment and doing the same thing and recording it for anyone who wishes to enjoy it as long as you are not profiting from it.

Now, back to the original issue. The guy who played and recorded "Hotel California" and put it up on YouTube. He's not getting anything out of it other than the stroking of his Vanity button.

However, I do see the conflict here. YouTube IS profiting from it even though our amateur wasn't. With performances by groups or individuals that are true quality, more people are drawn to YouTube to experience it. With more people visiting YouTube, the more the advitisers are going to pay to be featured on YouTube. YouTube prospers from these performances.

This I can understand. I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but I do understand it. Now, I wonder if, had this guy loaded his videos to a personal website that had no advertisers paying him to feature their ads...I wonder if Cass Country Music would have insisted that he pull it down?

What if he published his videos HERE on The Border where there is no profit being taken by anyone? Do you think it would still be a violation? Would you think the Eagles had the right to force the removal of such a video? I can see them insisting on removal of something they've recorded and published. Someone could download that and have a copy as good as the original. That is definitely violating the rights of the Eagles and is rightly opening the violator up for legal action.

But someone else recording the song without intent to profit in any way? Or is it your point that the act of playing and recording "Hotel California" for your own use is something that the Eagles should be compensated for because you received some degree of pleasure from it? I thought music was created to bring pleasure to the listeners. But if this is the way the law reads, then it would be illegal for someone to walk down the street humming the song!

Nancy, invite the guy to post his videos here on The Border and let's see if we get spanked for it <LOL>

Freypower
11-29-2009, 06:08 PM
Moderator's note: Moved to 'Singing for the sake of the song' because it's about music. While I sympathise with Rambo for the videos being removed from YouTube I'm not sure it's in the 'wonders' category.

MikeA
11-29-2009, 07:29 PM
It is about the Music FP. And I've got to say that I am thoroughly enjoying the dialog here. It is really making me examine my own Thoughts on this matter. It just never occurred to me that singing someone else's song might be something that is "Wrong".

I honesty do not think that they (Cass Country Music or Henley) are objecting to the guy video-tapping his rendition of the song on a classical guitar without any vocals! Henley has stated before his position concerning YouTube. And it isn't "favorable" <LOL>

sodascouts
11-29-2009, 07:42 PM
Most of us couldn't put together a marketable lyric set or even one close to technically correct if our lives depended on it. We couldn't make a run through a song without a mistake that we couldn't cover up for love or money! Most of us have vocals that are average to poor at best! Thank God our lives do NOT depend on whatever it is we can do musically.

But, does that mean that we should not play or sing for the sake of our own Vanity? If that were the case, there would be a LOT of people out of work. Folks working for Fender, Gibson and Taylor to name a few. Recon the majority of their sales come from Professional Musicians? Wonder what percentage is of those making guitar purchases who have ever wrote or performed anything "original"?

And, if those making purchases could not legally play anything they didn't compose themselves, I wonder how many would go out and pay someone the price for a guitar, amp and mic? Specifically, that is what we are talking about isn't it? If you didn't write it, you can't sing it.

Very good points. I think a lot of these guys forget that there was a time when they were not writing songs - they were playing other people's songs - and they were probably doing it in front of other people - and they never felt they were breaking the law.

Let's look at it this way. It's 1970 in Los Angeles. Some guys are hanging out at a party jamming. They start playing a Beatles song, then a Rolling Stones song.... songs everybody knows. It's in public and people are listening to it, enjoying it. Illegal? What if an industry guy walks in, hears them playing these songs, and gives them an audition which leads to a record contract. Illegal? I wonder how many times The Four Speeds played covers at friend's parties...

People have always played songs written by others for their friends. Now, technology has allowed their circle of friends to become a lot bigger... but I don't see a difference otherwise.


and, when the actual artists says, "hey, not so fast, you gotta pay to play" it attacks vanity at its root... hence, the upset.

Regarding upset, I think a source of it is a feeling of betrayal - the most common response to this act is "I'm no longer buying their music/going to see their shows anymore." The mentality is: "I was a big fan - they've gotten lots of money from me - and they're hurting me." The fan feels not only unappreciated, but attacked.

I also think a lot of people's upset comes from the "big guys picking on little guys" syndrome, too. Nobody likes to see some average Joe being kicked around by a millionaire.

You don't see this kind of behavior from struggling young artists. They WANT their music to "go viral" on YouTube, and if some guy plays their song on YouTube and it gets hits - which in turn leads to more publicity for them - they welcome it. Yeah, many of them wouldn't like it if someone gave away their albums - and who could blame them! - but they understand there's a difference between someone uploading their album and someone uploading their live performances or covers of their songs. It's the older and/or richer guys who conflate everything into "stealing music" without any discernment, and they garner a great deal of ill will from people who DO see a difference.

Common sense... that's what people need to exercise here. Choose your battles wisely. Go after those who hurt you; leave alone those who don't. Especially leave alone your fans who love you and who have supported you monetarily in other ways.

The disconnect here, I think, is not between people who are creative and people who aren't. (Ask Eagles songwriter Larry J. McNally, who posted a blog in which he compliments a YouTube fan video made to I Love to Watch a Woman Dance (http://www.larryjohnmcnally.com/wordpress/?p=69)). It's between people who believe that there's gray areas regarding YouTube and copyright, and those who see it strictly in black and white. That kind of disconnect is nothing new. Henley himself has sung about it:

Well it sure makes you wonder
The things that some people will say
They can see black and white but they
Don't seem to notice the gray

- "Nobody's Business"

Hence the problem.

bernie's bender
11-29-2009, 09:31 PM
Mike,

the respect is mutual to be sure!

The story about the girls was intended to illustrate that they were angry because they felt a sense of entitlement, that they DESERVED to sing because they were in the club... kind of the customer is always right.

We have two members in our country band that HATE when people want to sing and get made when we let them. It is there position that we are professional musicians performing music for people (for pay)... it is my take that we are entertainers being paid to entertain the crowd which can include letting audience members sing once in awhile...

I think hanging out in your house or in a garage and jamming with friends poses no issue on the copyright front (obviously xeroxing charts and music is a violation, I have absolutely been in violation of this.)

The two key issues: 1) If an artist (or his folks) does not enforce copyright does he lose rights? Yes. And he loses money that the law says is his. 2) Is there a benefit garnered by the violator? Is the gain measurable in monetary terms? Some times. Remember the ukulele guy... that Jake guy who did the "over the rainbow" and became a pretty big star through his youtube... did choosing that song, benefit him? I'd argue it did (I also think the copyright for that song has lapsed, so it was hunky dory) but if he had done, say, "Fire and Rain" or "Take it Easy" shouldn't the songwriter have benefitted too? I don't know for sure myself.

I don't have any strong feelings about this issue. A song is not like a brownie (this is my stoner friends explanation of this.) A song is not a brownie... now, if some fools went and took 3 or 4 brownies that your grandma made for you because she loves you... she'd be mad and you'd be mad. Then, if you found them selling those brownies for 2 bucks a piece, you'd really be mad. Hell, if they had asked your granny, she would have made them some... but stealing them.. that is bad.

one other thing I've learned over the years is: They call it show business, not show fun. When we get disappointed in artists whose music we love... just realize, us criticizing what they do professionally would be like having your neighbor who loves your yard come to your office and be mad about your phone mannerisms. it is about making money... for better or worse.

MikeA
11-30-2009, 09:09 AM
As you've seen in my posts BB, I've done a turn-around after my initial kneejerk response to the HC version posted on YouTube. Worthwhile for me personally because it has caused me to really think through the points you've made.

I still maintain that there is no infringement if someone is "covering" a song that is not intended to be used for personal gain. By that I am strictly talking about money. Not an inflated ego that has been "gained". I suppose you could say that getting your ego stroked is personal gain, but I don't think you could assign a specific monetary value to it.

Where I had to rethink my first reaction lies in the realization that YouTube is like a huge Bar that doesn't require a cover charge. To the fans, it's FREE. To the Artists, it's free. With YouTube as the Bar, it is getting paid for the presence of the fans not through the drinks they sell at the Bar, but rather by providing an audience to the Advertisers who ARE paying Them for the privilege of promoting their products.

Oh, with the girls....Don't see them "entitled" to anything. There were four of them...right? You mentioned that they threw a glass that broke and got some of the dancers wet so there must have been quite a few other people in the club. If it had been just the three Other girls present in the club, I might have said "Okay, come on up." But the other people in the club at the time had "entitlements" too. They were entitled to hear a professional band performing and had paid through whatever means for that "right". The did not pay to hear some Karaoke Queen potentially butcher one of your songs!

There may be exceptions...such as that the bar and you may have been contracted to provide entertainment for a company party. You might at that time either invite or be required to let those attending participate up on stage.

I understand that there are "open mic" nights at bars and clubs around the country where that isn't the case. Guitarists, singers, drummers...whoever, know that they will get a shot at performing on those nights with other musicians.

Or maybe you KNEW that the person requesting a stage presence was GOOD and didn't mind bringing them up.

Their "entitlements" just don't extent to the extreme of getting up on stage and interrupting the flow of the band's set. I understand that there are "open mic" nights at bars and clubs around the country where that isn't the case.

RamboIV
12-14-2009, 04:30 AM
Well things have gone from bad to worse. Cass Country Music claimed a copyright infringement against my account again. You know what for?

A live video of "The Long Run"... BY DON FELDER!

How the Hell does Henley's publishing company claim a copyright infringement on a video that is not even of him!? It's a cover version! Good Lord!

So now my account is deleted. Thank you very much, Mr. Henley.

Thank god I saved back ups of all my videos. This means I can re-upload them in higher quality, I guess. At least non-Eagles material.

TimothyBFan
12-14-2009, 08:54 AM
:enraged: :censored: I really cannot get started on this whole thing!!! :sad:

bernie's bender
12-14-2009, 11:44 AM
Well things have gone from bad to worse. Cass Country Music claimed a copyright infringement against my account again. You know what for?

A live video of "The Long Run"... BY DON FELDER!

How the Hell does Henley's publishing company claim a copyright infringement on a video that is not even of him!? It's a cover version! Good Lord!

So now my account is deleted. Thank you very much, Mr. Henley.

Thank god I saved back ups of all my videos. This means I can re-upload them in higher quality, I guess. At least non-Eagles material.

it isn't about the performance, it is about the authorship of the song. Cass Country could probably care less about who does it, they want to be paid when it is performed by anyone or shared by anyone. It is their legal right, they are just enforcing it.

EagleLady
12-14-2009, 11:56 AM
it isn't about the performance, it is about the authorship of the song. Cass Country could probably care less about who does it, they want to be paid when it is performed by anyone or shared by anyone. It is their legal right, they are just enforcing it.



And it is our right to want to listen to a song on Youtube is that so bad?

sodascouts
12-14-2009, 04:02 PM
I'm not surprised they forced you to take down The Long Run. Don Henley co-wrote that tune, so his company can take down videos of other people performing it. The fact that the performer is ex-Eagle Don Felder is ironic, but not relevant legally.

Now, if Cass County Music attempted to force you to take down a video of Felder doing Heavy Metal or other solo material simply because he happened to be an Eagle at one time... then they'd be going beyond their legal purview.

CCM does have a legal right to take the videos down. We may hope that they wouldn't be so heavy handed and unbending. We may hope that they would think outside of the "YOU TUBE IS EVIL" box. We may hope they would follow the lead of other successful bands who have utilized YouTube instead of fighting a futile battle which accomplishes nothing but garnering ill will from fans. We may hope they would realize that just because they CAN take down the videos doesn't mean they SHOULD.

However, if they choose to be unyielding, we have to just shake our heads, sigh heavily, and suck it up - unless you wanna go on the upload/removal merry-go-round, or quit YouTube altogether and find someplace else to post your videos.

EagleLady
12-14-2009, 04:11 PM
All I can say is.............. Go to Dailymotion or Hulu. I wish Don wouldn't be such a scrooge towards Youtube.

luvthelighthouse
12-14-2009, 04:44 PM
What I don't get is, there are hundreds of Eagles video's on youtube. How do they decide which ones they want to take down?

Freypower
12-14-2009, 06:39 PM
And it is our right to want to listen to a song on Youtube is that so bad?

No, but whose rights are more important? Ours or the song's co-author?

It's worth repeating that only CCM is doing this, not Red Cloud Music (Glenn's company) although all his vidoes were removed from YouTube at one point. There are still a couple there, but Universal didn't put them up.

sodascouts
12-14-2009, 08:55 PM
What I don't get is, there are hundreds of Eagles video's on youtube. How do they decide which ones they want to take down?

Good question. It seems very random. Two people upload the same video. One gets taken down, the other doesn't. Their songs are still up there; it's just now there are only 5 versions of the song instead of 10. Thus, they haven't even accomplished their most basic goal of protecting their copyright, since the material remains. Putting aside the damage to public relations, the YouTube purges are failures in practical terms as well.

Also, something I mentioned earlier that I find very ironic is that the uploading of commercially available material such as songs from HFO and F1 seems to be largely left alone, while the fanvids and fan covers are targeted by whoever is making the complaints on behalf of Henley. (For instance, you can easily find The Long Run from Farewell 1 currently on YouTube - here's an example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYn5-HruzVU).)

That is inexplicable to me. It's like they are TRYING to alienate fans!

UK TimFan
12-15-2009, 10:00 AM
Re the removal of the YouTube video of the guy 'sitting on his sofa' playing HC, did anyone notice that if you click on his user name, and then do a few more clicks, there is a 'commercial' link to buy tabs? Perhaps that's the major reason Cass asked for the removal of the video. On the other hand, I can't see HC in the list of tabs available, but Cass could have ordered him to stop selling them. Or ordered the removal of HC in case he published tabs of it in the future.

I am really torn on the whole YouTube issue.
About 18 months ago, I was idly looking through the 'cheap records' on a fairly well-known internet site, and one of the offers was LROOE. There were snippets of the songs to listen to, and I really liked several of the songs, so decided to buy it.
That was probably about the same sort of time that I began to really discover YT (I'm not the world's greatest techie :grin:). And I found all these great vidoes of the Eagles in concert(s) - Farewell Tour, and the Long Run.
After playing 'You belong in the city' from Farewell more than was good for my health (the tops of Tim's legs about 1.30 in :thud:) and bandwidth, I thought I ought to buy the video. And while I was getting that, I might as well get the Long Run.
By now I had completely fallen in love with Tim's voice, so the plastic took another battering when two of his CDs cost me £22 each (about $71 in total at today's conversion so actually a very good buy). The other two were a bit cheaper.
I was talking to a friend about the Eagles and for some reason we both said 'New York minute' at the same time. Friend made me a boot-leg copy of the 'End of the innocence' CD. Fell in love with Don's voice, and I now have his four 'main' albums (not the 'hits' ones) - including 'End of the innocence'.
I believe I have all the Poco CDs Tim sang on, I have the Eagles 'Country roads' DVD, and have just bought all of their old CDs.

I realise that the typical YT user doesn't go quite so overboard as me :grin:, but it's impossible to equate just how many extra records are sold as a result of someone finding an artist on YT.

As I said, I'm really torn, but YT is possibly not quite the devil Don would like to make it out to be.

sodascouts
12-15-2009, 11:12 AM
Well, if he were trying to sell HC tabs, that WOULD make him a lot less sympathetic! He claims they instructed YouTube to take the video down solely because he was covering the song, though, as they did with the Don Felder videos that Joe posted. I guess it depends on if you believe him or not!

I think there are many, many people with similar stories to yours regarding buying things as a result of YouTube, UKTimFan.

luvthelighthouse
12-15-2009, 01:20 PM
I think those that buy CD's based on youtube, evens out those that don't. As I stated, I bought LROOE solely because of what I heard on youtube. MY friends recommendation didn't even sell me, but YT did.

From there, I went on to buy all their CD's as well as a couple of Poco CD's. Also, I purchased Farewell 1 due to YT.

If only some artist's could come around and embrace YT, they just may find it truely is a great marketing tool.

Shadowland07
02-23-2010, 02:46 PM
Cass County Music is taking all the Eagles videos i posted on youtube down

sodascouts
02-23-2010, 02:53 PM
Unsurprising. They've been busy lately. I'm sorry your efforts went to waste, Shadowland.

EagleLady
02-23-2010, 03:00 PM
Don needs to lighten up while he still can about Youtube

Maleah
02-23-2010, 03:20 PM
Cass County Music is taking all the Eagles videos i posted on youtube down

I hear ya! They took down the "Boys of Summer" video that I recorded in Fargo last year. Maybe I should take down the "Long Run" video before they ban me from youtube. lol So annoying!

Shadowland07
02-23-2010, 04:04 PM
i know. i posted the videos that were for download on eaglesonlinecentral.com and they took down most of them. it sucks cause fans wont be able to enjoy them. one of two things need to happen
1) they let us keep the videos on YouTube or
2) they release a Beatles Anthology thingy of the Eagles or something


I hear ya! They took down the "Boys of Summer" video that I recorded in Fargo last year. Maybe I should take down the "Long Run" video before they ban me from youtube. lol So annoying!

sodascouts
02-24-2010, 01:53 AM
One of the videos they took down was a 14-year-old girl singing Hotel California - not a recorded version of the Eagles doing it, not sung along with the album track - just a young girl singing a song she loved, filmed and uploaded to YouTube by her father.

:headshake:

Maleah
02-24-2010, 02:23 AM
It's ridiculous, imo. All they are accomplishing is making themselves look like arrogant jerks and in the long run they'll lose fans over it. I looked up Cass County Music after they removed my video and saw they have been VERY busy. There were a lot of people who were very upset and chose to no longer be supportive of the artists.

I understand if people are providing something for free that the artists could be making money from, but come on.......a cover of a song by a 14 year old???? Puhlease

sodascouts
02-24-2010, 02:49 AM
There are many stories like the above.

Check this one out from Harmony Central (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showpost.php?p=38850724&postcount=18).

EagleLady
02-24-2010, 02:51 AM
Wow. That is uncalled for to scare a child like that

TimothyBFan
02-24-2010, 08:28 AM
This sickens me. The only thing that would make me angrier is if the guys actually know to what extent this has gone and are letting it happen. I'm picturing something like this happening to my 17 year old daughter, who's been a fan for years, she would be devastated and I'm sure would no longer be a fan.

Do you think they actually know to what extent this has reached? I certainly hope not but I'd put $$ on it that they do.

I know this isn't going to sound good but I will say it anyways, I will always LOVE LOVE LOVE their music and them as musicians, BUT if they are a part of something like this, I have to admit, I don't care much for them as people. Maleah--you hit the nail on the head, they really are "arrogant jerks" if they are letting this happen.

Way to treat your fans~~ Remember? Those people that made you what you are today?:-(

Freypower
02-24-2010, 10:20 PM
I still think it's worth pointing out that Cass County Music is only affiliated with Don Henley. It is Don Henley's publishing company and does not represent the Eagles. It certainly does not represent Glenn Frey, whose publishing company is Red Cloud Music. It may or may be acting for the band's collective interest, but we don't know that for sure.

TimothyBFan
02-25-2010, 08:53 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong please, but didn't they recently take down some of Tim's stuff from some of his solo shows also?

sodascouts
02-25-2010, 12:28 PM
I know I personally haven't received a complaint on Tim material specifically, but one of my accounts which hosted material from all the Eagles was deleted and thus the Tim material went with it. Perhaps others have had different experiences.

The first YouTube video I ever got taken down was thanks to Joe's busy bee lawyers Paterno et.al, and that was years ago before Cass County went on their spree. I have never received a notice from Red Cloud Music on any of my YouTube accounts.

luvthelighthouse
02-25-2010, 01:27 PM
What I do not get, is why they (Don et al) loathe youtube. If I want a quality piece of music, I will buy the CD. "I", personally, do not think of youtube as quality at all. It's more for fun or "entertainment" purposes. It's never going to take the place of a live concert or real CD (or legally downloaded material).

To "me", it's just another media connection between rockstar and fan. Nothing more.

Granted, I am clearly not a top rated musician... but still, most people aren't. I'm sure that the general population doesn't look to youtube for anything of true quality to take the place of something an established band has put out.

Yes, I know, some bands don't want anything out there except top notch quality. The Eagles being right up there... as we know they closely monitor their concerts to sound just like the CD w/little to no variation. Something us fans have come to except... however, I think the whole youtube thing is out of control... as some of these musicans should realize, their fans are everyday people and want to see or hear their favorite band in any capacity... not just overproduced CD's.

Okay... off soapbox... I'm sure I'll be blasted, but it's just "my" opinion and "my" thoughts.

TimothyBFan
02-25-2010, 02:43 PM
Maybe that's what I'm thinking Soda. I just remember one day Timothy's solo show was there and a few days later, not.

Was thinking about this earlier. I don't upload anything on YouTube but I do frequent it alot to check my faves out. I have different playlists for my faves like Cars, Sweet, Eagles, Styx, etc.... but I don't know why I bother with Eagles. Every time I bring it up, the stuff I added to that playlist has been taken down. :sad: I keep it there, I believe, only because I feel "obligated" to have an Eagles playlist. :hilarious:

Freypower
02-25-2010, 06:42 PM
I think the issue is with copyright and ownership, not the quality of the YouTube clips.

MikeA
02-25-2010, 06:58 PM
The Eagles are not unique YET as being a band that gained popularity during a period in which record sales and radio play were EVERYTHING. While they definitely are not stupid, I think that their embracing of the technology of today has never occurred. In attitude, they seem to be still living in a world of record sales being their main income.

Obviously, that is not the case. They have all but acknowledged that it is their concert tours themselves that are making them rich and not the sales of CDs at Wal-Mart.

That is what surprises me about this "YouTube" thing. Seeing them on YouTube would seem to me a medium that would encourage the general population to part with hard earned cash to see them live. They have adversely embraced YouTube as a "friend" and instead made of it "The Enemy".

I'm sure their income from the CD sales, after paying for distribution and production isn't asparagus. Yet, even if YouTube hurt those sales (which I strongly DOUBT) it would more than make up for it in increased TICKET SALES if it were handled properly.

What if there were links on each YouTube vid made available that allowed the listener to link to and download a high quality MP3 for $.99 like most artists are now doing. Or download an entire album for $8 or $10 like many artists are doing. That would completely cut out production of the physical CD medium and also would virtually eliminate distribution.

I think they are missing the boat on this one. But they can afford to miss it in order to stand on a Principle concerning YouTube that walks hand in hand with the monopoly (practically speaking) of that FM Radio Corp (Clear Channel Radio?) that they have openly criticized.

luvthelighthouse
02-25-2010, 07:56 PM
I think the issue is with copyright and ownership, not the quality of the YouTube clips.

I suppose... but I still do not agree/understand their point of view. Perhaps if Henley himself sat down and explained exactly why he feels the way he does, I "might" get it... but honestly, I'd try to sway his opinion. :laugh:

Freypower
02-25-2010, 08:26 PM
All I know is one of the reasons he founded the Recording Artists Coalition is because of his obsession with 'the right to own his own ideas' (Inside Job).

Some of his thoughts on this are here.

http://www.donhenleyonline.com/articles/billboard2000WhitePaper.htm

And:

And as head of the Recording Artists Coalition, he has challenged the recording industry on a number of issues, particularly the disbursement of royalties and the question of who owns the rights to original recordings.

As Henley sees it, there's an industry tradition going back 60 years of shortchanging the artist. Ask him why the system has proliferated for so long and he gives you an earful.

"Because artists are artists," he says matter-of-factly. "Because artists don't have any business sense and because the lawyers who are supposed to be protecting the artists haven't really stood up to the labels."

Plus, Henley argues, the system is designed to take advantage of newer artists. "All a young kid wants to do is make a record and hear it on the radio and maybe get a little money and get some girls and get some popularity," he says. "They don't think about the long-term consequences. They don't think about the fine print in the contract. You can try and explain it to them and they still don't hear you . . . They just want to be in the game."

Of course, you could argue that Henley has chosen a bad time to pick a fight with the record companies, who have suffered declining sales in recent years and have struggled against the advent of online music downloading. But that's precisely the point.

"Get 'em when they're down," Henley says. "They certainly won't listen to us when times are good, they'll laugh and brush us aside. So this is actually the best time . . . They need our help to fight piracy. They need our help to fight a lot of things. We're saying, 'We'll help you if you treat us fairly.' " (Copied from DHO Palm Beach Post interview, 2003).

Shadowland07
02-25-2010, 10:35 PM
well pretty sure my new account will be deleted in just a few days. i just received another warning and they took down my video of them playin Witchy Woman in Holland down.

Stars
02-26-2010, 09:12 AM
The whole thing is so sad to me.:-(

MikeA
02-26-2010, 09:56 AM
It IS SAD. And I'm with Henley on the issue as to the way the Recording Industry has treated artists in the past, and maybe still do treat them. Most Artist are not "Business Men".

Henley isn't the only one who feels Artists have been screwed badly by the recording industry.

Look at what Clapton has done. Maybe Eric is more in tune and is doing as much in his own way as Henley is doing. Eric acknowledges the contributions, particularly of Black Artists who were swindled out of what was rightfully theirs by the Record Companies. Many of these musicians are even today living in poverty when they should have been rewarded with compensating royalties for their work. Clapton has helped many by touring with them using his "draw" to insure higher record sales and notoriety.

I am not criticizing Henley for this. I applaud him for it in fact! My criticism pertains to his methods. I simply think that he and the Agents of The Eagles and other groups possibly, are not embrassing the electronic media in a way that is best for the financial wellbeing of the group or Artists in General.

Ive always been a dreamer
02-26-2010, 01:43 PM
Well said, Mike - ITA!

Shadowland07
04-08-2010, 09:07 PM
well Cass County took down my cover of Certain Kind of Fool :-x

Shadowland07
04-08-2010, 09:31 PM
i just don't get it, they should be proud that people are covering the Eagles. but no instead they decide to try to drive away their fans

Shadowland07
04-08-2010, 11:22 PM
what songs do they own the rights to? knowing will help me prevent getting another one of my youtube accounts disabled

sodascouts
04-09-2010, 11:33 AM
Cass County Music is connected with just about all of Don's catalog, so pretty much whatever he wrote or co-wrote would fall under their purview.

However, with YouTube, it's guilty until proven innocent. Cass County Music could tell YouTube to take down a video you've posted that does not actually contain material copyrighted to Don - for instance, a solo video of Glenn, Tim, Joe, Randy, Bernie, or Felder - and it would go down without question. You would have to issue an appeal to get it put back, and to do that you would have to be able to provide proof of copyright. Since you can't do that, your video stays down (and, on the third instance, your account disabled) regardless of whether or not Cass County Music has any legal claim.

I know this because it's happened to me under some of my many YouTube IDs. I used to post videos to YouTube like a maniac (one of which was the video of "How Long" that inspired them to re-record the song but ANYWAY...). I've honestly lost track of how many IDs I made up - one would get shut down, I'd create a new one. On one account, I had posted live videos of Glenn doing Desperado and also Glenn doing the Heat Is On, and Cass County Music told YouTube to remove both.

In fact, the first video I ever got taken down was a video of Joe photos set to the Stevie Nicks song, "Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for You." Paterno et al, representing Joe, demanded the video taken down. Joe had no copyright on those photos and the song was copyrighted to Stevie Nicks and Welsh Witch Music, but that made no difference - YouTube did as Paterno asked regardless.

Why did I upload those videos? It was because I wanted to share the videos I didn't have room for on my sites - plus, in the beginning, I only had a Glenn site so all the songs by the other guys weren't getting put up. It felt like such a waste that no one could see them. (Back then there wasn't much Eagles stuff on YouTube.)

I don't have the time to do that kind of thing anymore, so my crazy YouTube days are over. However, I really don't need to upload anything anymore... thanks to the increasing commonality of torrent sites who provide access to rarities, the increasing ease of ripping videos to file format, and the increasing speed of internet connections which enables more convenient uploading/downloading, the videos are circulating much more widely. Thus, I can just leave it to other people to post them.

That's why CCM's "crack down" is a big waste of effort - the videos are still out there. The barn door's lock is broken and slamming that door shut only lasts until the next cow nudges it open again.

Freypower
04-09-2010, 06:39 PM
Cass County Music is connected with just about all of Don's catalog, so pretty much whatever he wrote or co-wrote would fall under their purview.

However, with YouTube, it's guilty until proven innocent. Cass County Music could tell YouTube to take down a video you've posted that does not actually contain material copyrighted to Don - for instance, a solo video of Glenn, Tim, Joe, Randy, Bernie, or Felder - and it would go down without question.


Why does Cass County have the power to remove material pertaining to the other Eagles? Particularly solo material which Henley had nothing to do with?

Henley co-wrote Certain Kind of Fool, yes, but this seems to be going beyond what is reasonable.

MikeA
04-09-2010, 08:16 PM
I think that ANYONE can claim the right whether justified or not in demanding that something be removed. It is pretty much up to YouTube whether or not to risk lawsuit in leaving it up. Cass Country just presses beyond their authority and YouTube must figure it is less chance of them getting into a lawsuit if they bow to the Powers rather than contest them.

If you want to take any joy out of this situation, consider that Cass Country and those they represent is PAYING someone to scourer the files on YouTube looking for items they can complain about. It is costing them money. Hopefully, it is costing them a lot more than they could possibly be saving by not allowing people to enjoy that which they are not trying to sell. Obviously, Henley and those who represent him are standing on principle. Again "Obviously", Don Henley can afford it!

bernie's bender
04-09-2010, 09:03 PM
At some point. All the wiggling and sniveling has to be done and folks are gonna have to own up their own vanity or just live an illusion.

Our collages of images and sound are just dandy so long as we use them within the bounds of our own entertainment. If we own bootlegs of performances and use them for our own personal entertainment, there won't be any problem.

It is when vanity takes over that we get crossed up. Create something original or pay the appropriate price to use the materials that you do not own or keep them within the domain of fair use.

Vanity is wicked, it nearly never sees itself (yes, I am including myself in that metric.)


We can disrespect the snitch, but we can't excuse away the misdeed.

sodascouts
04-09-2010, 09:38 PM
Yes, we're all vain, to varying degrees. Isn't vanity what drives a musician from strumming in his bedroom to performing on a stage?

"Look at me, baby, look at me! I'm beautiful, I'm beautiful, I'm Somebody!" ;)

I for one am glad the Eagles were vain enough to share their talents with the world. I've certainly benefited, as have millions of others.

Has it gotten out of control? Has vanity taken over? Are they too full of themselves now? Do they have an overblown sense of entitlement, a loss of perspective? Well, that's hard to say. Such judgments are entirely subjective; it behooves all of us to remember that when we feel the urge to cast stones - myself included.

Shadowland07
04-09-2010, 10:42 PM
see i'm the kind of YouTuber that posts videos of me cover songs either on guitar or bass. i want to be able to post a few covers without my account being disabled

bernie's bender
04-10-2010, 01:45 PM
Yes, we're all vain, to varying degrees. Isn't vanity what drives a musician from strumming in his bedroom to performing on a stage?

"Look at me, baby, look at me! I'm beautiful, I'm beautiful, I'm Somebody!" ;)

I for one am glad the Eagles were vain enough to share their talents with the world. I've certainly benefited, as have millions of others.

Has it gotten out of control? Has vanity taken over? Are they too full of themselves now? Do they have an overblown sense of entitlement, a loss of perspective? Well, that's hard to say. Such judgments are entirely subjective; it behooves all of us to remember that when we feel the urge to cast stones - myself included.

Interesting take... the distinction I'd make is that the guys who are the Eagles have talent and are creators of art. From nothing they made something. They played music regardless of the audience and the music became their livelihood.

The folks who flood youtube with music and picture which are not their own in a 'mash up' often do so in a vain attempt to gather 'fans' or 'viewers'.

I think my reference is really to the extremity of vanity. The people who think that if they own a cd, they somehow own the band. Or folks who think that they know what is best for a band or artist simply because they are fanatical about the band.

If Don Henley owned a big part of Colorado (like say 150,000 acres) and I was from there and I wanted to hunt on his land (hoping to land some food for my family, the enjoyment of the hunt, and nice set of antlers for my den) and if I just went on the land and did my thing and I was told to get off by his hired hand... I would go peacefully. It is his land. His property.

If I chose to contact Don and ask if I could hunt on his land, that I wanted to share the bounty of his place with my neighbors and friends for a picnic featuring the game from his place and he said "No." I might go to the local coffee shop and call him names like 'selfish, stupid, jerk, or having admired him for years, I might blame it on his land man or ranch hands for being self important jerks." I could do all of that, but, in the end, if I believe in the concept that someone can own something and have rights to it and be able to say who can and who can't use it... then I have to honor that and go find another place to hunt.

It isn't really vain to create something and sell it. I don't see the vanity in creating a song, singing it and seeing if the market will respond. I see the vanity in folks taking someone else's work and somehow using it for purposes that the artist did not request and does not want and yet somehow we claim rights to something we did not create.

If my daughter took a joyride in someone else's car, got caught and when she was removed from the car, some harsh language was used and it made her cry... I'd feel responsible for not teaching her better behavior but I surely wouldn't be too upset about the language....

sodascouts
04-10-2010, 02:42 PM
the distinction I'd make is that the guys who are the Eagles have talent and are creators of art

Your definition of vanity involves a lot of subjective judgments. Is it only vanity if the person is somehow unworthy (not talented enough, creative enough, etc.)? These are categories that, of course, the person making the judgments would not put himself into.

Vanity never sees itself...

Also, who defines art? Are the Marilyn prints by Andy Warhol art?

http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79737

Most would argue yes, but Marilyn Monroe never gave her permission. She was dead. Warhol's art was recreating altered versions of a publicity photo which was a still for a movie - basically, an official "screen shot." He did it for photos of Elvis, too, and other pop culture figures. He was lauded for it and his works hang in museums and sell for millions.

His painting of an existing photograph is very comparable to someone covering an existing song.... only he did his for profit, unlike some poor kid covering a song for fun, posting it on YouTube to share it with his friends, and never making a cent off of the original work (nor taking a cent from potential sales of the original artist).

But, one argues, Warhol's work was "great"! Those other guys aren't a fraction as talented - they're just wannabes! How dare anyone compare the two!

The only problem is that if we define "vanity" by whether or not a person is "talented" and if they have truly created "art," we fall into a trap. The subjectivity of art is undeniable, so using it to make moral judgments, using it to measure whether or not someone's behavior is "wicked".... that's very questionable, to say the least. Person X is more talented than Person Y, so Person X's actions aren't vain while Person Y's are... sorry, not buying it.

sodascouts
04-10-2010, 03:58 PM
And while we're mulling that over, here's an interesting tale.

A young couple had an idea that for their wedding, they'd have the wedding party dance in to Chris Brown's song "Forever." Did they ask permission? No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

Not everyone in their family could come. They uploaded the video to YouTube so that their family and friends who weren't there could get a look at it (obviously, the premise that all these people make such videos solely to get "fans" is flawed). Later, after the video garnered such attention, they used it to link to a site they created where one could donate to prevent domestic abuse.

It went viral. Got MILLIONS of hits, and still counting. And...

"Viral Wedding Video’s 10M Views Drive Chris Brown Buzz and Sales" (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/viral-wedding-videos-10m-views-drive-chris-brown-buzz-and-sales/)
"While it’s great news and great fun for the happy couple, the video also seems to have had a halo effect for troubled singer Chris Brown (http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/chris-brown/679240) [...] 'Forever,' despite being released last year, is now in the iTunes top 10."
It finally was parodied on a national television show, The Office. You can see that on Hulu.com (http://www.hulu.com/watch/101187/the-office-forever).

Meanwhile, they happy couple were invited to do the talk show circuit!

The couple benefited, yes. So did YouTube, Google, The Office, NBC, every talk show they appeared on, and victims of domestic violence. Last but not least, so did original artist Chris Brown.

That's not even counting the benefit to millions of people who viewed the video and got a big smile on their face. :)

All because of some ordinary, average, "vain" folks who wickedly uploaded their copyright-violating video to YouTube.

I bet Chris Brown is glad he didn't insist this harmless video be taken down, because it's become a goldmine for him.

sodascouts
04-11-2010, 12:56 AM
Arnel Pineda is a guy from the Philippines with a great voice. He uploaded to YouTube videos of himself singing covers, including Journey songs, with a cover band (The Zoo).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ragdoUO6s5w

Yes, it violated copyright.... so what did founding member of Journey Neal Schon do when he saw it? Did he make sure that copyright violating cover was immediately taken down?

Hardly. Schon asked Pineda to be their new lead singer.

Watch the whole story here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89_2UivtEhs

Pineda was dirt poor and singing to survive (literally). He was "vain" enough to upload that video, though, and his life has changed forever as a result. He's benefited; Journey's benefited; Journey's fans have benefited... and who's been hurt? No one.

MikeA
04-11-2010, 07:33 AM
That dude can belt it out!

bernie's bender
04-11-2010, 11:49 AM
Schon did what he was permitted to do (since he owns the rights) which I would support. Journey is, effectively, his band, his property to do with what he wants. I'd support that.

I know several folks here love tribute bands, I'm not particularly a fan, but there is room for everyone....

Journey has become an oldies band and with the addition of the copycat guy, they are unique because they have effectively become their own copy band...

It will be interesting to see if the new guy can come up with a "Faithfully"... I'm betting against it... but, you never know.

Like most people, I enjoy a rags to riches story, but again, the story is often used to cloud the issue. To me, the rightful owner gets to decide how he/she wants to use his/her property... in this case Schon saw value for his brand and his product, but he could have decided differently and been just as justified.

The new singer provides a solution to a problem of viability for his band... now they can tour the oldies circuit, county fairs etc and continue to entertain fans... it seems like a win for all involved in this instance.

bernie's bender
04-11-2010, 12:07 PM
Your definition of vanity involves a lot of subjective judgments. Is it only vanity if the person is somehow unworthy (not talented enough, creative enough, etc.)? These are categories that, of course, the person making the judgments would not put himself into.

Vanity never sees itself...

Also, who defines art? Are the Marilyn prints by Andy Warhol art?

http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79737

Most would argue yes, but Marilyn Monroe never gave her permission. She was dead. Warhol's art was recreating altered versions of a publicity photo which was a still for a movie - basically, an official "screen shot." He did it for photos of Elvis, too, and other pop culture figures. He was lauded for it and his works hang in museums and sell for millions.

His painting of an existing photograph is very comparable to someone covering an existing song.... only he did his for profit, unlike some poor kid covering a song for fun, posting it on YouTube to share it with his friends, and never making a cent off of the original work (nor taking a cent from potential sales of the original artist).

But, one argues, Warhol's work was "great"! Those other guys aren't a fraction as talented - they're just wannabes! How dare anyone compare the two!

The only problem is that if we define "vanity" by whether or not a person is "talented" and if they have truly created "art," we fall into a trap. The subjectivity of art is undeniable, so using it to make moral judgments, using it to measure whether or not someone's behavior is "wicked".... that's very questionable, to say the least. Person X is more talented than Person Y, so Person X's actions aren't vain while Person Y's are... sorry, not buying it.

you work with language. you understand the limits of language and the subjectivity of it. dictionaries are written by a group of people who make subjective, qualitative judgements and decide what words mean, but the larger culture also drives how those judgements are made.

In the case of the Eagles writing, recording and producing the song "Hotel California" a reasonable person can quickly and easily come to the conclusion that that effort required skill, talent, and creativity to a very high degree. Folks who would debate whether or not that piece of work was the work of gifted folks would be dismissed as people who are just refusing to see the obvious.

In the case of making a tribute video collage by collecting pictures of a famous person and then pairing them with a song that has no connection to the famous person (either historically or known to be an important song to the historical person) and wear the 'author' is just taking a pre recorded song and pictures found through googling the internet and then tossing them together... I think that a reasonable person if asked to compare the two creative efforts could reasonably question the second one as derivative and, while for the fans of the song or the famous person, they might find it mildly entertaining... I'm not sure most would call it art. Are video montages on ESPN art? For the purposes of rhetoric, some folks would try to make the argument, but it is pretty specious if we are just trying to be honest.

So, if it is primarily for entertainment... then what is the purpose of this entertainment? If the 'work' was found to be counter to the purposes of the musical artist and/or the famous person being 'tributed' then who benefits? And if the orginal artists object to the use of their work and their image... what difference does it make... doesn't it just make the 'artist' another Devore?

Marilyn Monroe is nearly as iconic as a visual figure as George Washington. Joe Paterno, while legendary is not. Those judgements are, to a degree, subjective, but a reasonable person would conclude the same thing.

While I think it is terrific to be a fan and to want to make tributes to our heroes and celebrate them, if the orginal artists or the figures to whom I make my tribute or their paid agents ask me to knock it off.... it might hurt my feelings a bit, but I think compliance is the respectable thing to do.

EagleLady
04-11-2010, 12:29 PM
It still doesn't seem fair to those who take the time to create the video in tribute to said person.

Ive always been a dreamer
04-11-2010, 12:30 PM
Yeah - the issues of copyright and the internet are complicated for sure. I can definitely see both sides here, and it is understandable that it is such an emotional issue. While I believe strongly that an artist has a right to protect their intellectual property against misuse on one hand, there does seem to be an absurdity when Cass County Music removes a video from YouTube of a youngster singing Hotel California in their own living room. I have faith that the legal system will be able to sort it all out in time, and come up with a common middle ground. Sometimes it's hard to remember that in the grand scheme of things, the internet is still in its infancy and there is still a lot of uncharted territory that is just beginning to surface. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the years to come.

bernie's bender
04-11-2010, 12:48 PM
It still doesn't seem fair to those who take the time to create the video in tribute to said person.

Well, it is awkward and it can absolutely hurt the feelings of the giver, but, it isn't as though the 'gift' was requested or asked for...

I think the producers of such things just need to accept that their 'work' may or may not be acceptable to the owner... if it isn't, it just seems right to accept their authority and move on.

I have a bunch of big festivals we're playing this summer in a couple of bands I play in. We're doing 3 cds to sell at gigs (for fun and profit) 2 of them have original songs and one has covers of songs we do... I've had to contact the Harry Fox agency and get the proper information so that folks can get paid etc... not that we'd 'get caught' but because we are benefitting from using the songs and while it won't amount to much money, I just don't like the idea of not doing the right thing by the original authors....

Now, if I record Hotel California in my living room, I can license it, pay the fees and leave my youtube up and I won't be hassled. The fees aren't a huge amount of money but show the legal respect required to avoid getting flagged.

Everyone acts like there is a huge expense to all this, and there isn't. It is a small bureaucratic process and not expensive... it just isn't 'free' and it involves actual 'work'....

So, can you record "Hotel California" in your living room and post it to youtube and not get it flagged for violation? Yep. You sure can. You just have to follow the requirements...

Ive always been a dreamer
04-11-2010, 01:04 PM
So, can you record "Hotel California" in your living room and post it to youtube and not get it flagged for violation? Yep. You sure can. You just have to follow the requirements...

I agree - and if I had to look into a crystal ball, I'd predict that one of those 'requirements' will be that sites like YouTube will have to begin charging a fee to upload certain material. It will be up to the general public to decide if they are willing to pay. I'm betting they will - iTunes seems to be doing just fine even though downloads aren't free any more. After all, in our capitalist society, it's all about supply and demand, and the bottom line.

bernie's bender
04-11-2010, 01:17 PM
I agree - and if I had to look into a crystal ball, I'd predict that one of those 'requirements' will be that sites like YouTube will have to begin charging a fee to upload certain material. It will be up to the general public to decide if they are willing to pay. I'm betting they will - iTunes seems to be doing just fine even though downloads aren't free any more. After all, in our capitalist society, it's all about supply and demand, and the bottom line.

check it out. (http://limelight.rightsflow.com/ClearanceHome.aspx) simple. legal. just requires an informed, responsible, non lazy person.

sodascouts
04-11-2010, 06:19 PM
We're just going around in circles with regard to the art aspect. Perhaps some people are just a little more open-minded with regard to that kind of thing.

Here's something interesting I came across that really highlights the absurdity of some of the enforcement going on here:

Artist Finds His Own Material Removed from YouTube (http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/23/artist-finds-his-own-music-video-removed-from-youtube-lashes-out-on-twitter/)

bernie's bender
04-11-2010, 07:57 PM
I agree about the round and round thing.

I'd disagree with the term open mindedness though.

There are simple, legal ways to post your 'works' on the internet.

There are instances of folks reporting users that are not in violation... But, the ratio of the two are in no fashion commensurate. Most of us know that anecdote + anecdote ≠ data, but about the same number know that there are enough people who don't know that which allows them an avenue for using anecdotal evidence which gives the appearance of an actual argument.

I'll leave you with this: If a student were to take part of a work by one researcher, and parts from 3 or 4 other researchers, sew it together in a 'new media' format, like, say, a podcast and call it "Michael talks about new energy" and says nothing else, no express credit given to the authors who did the actual work, just him speaking... would that be okay? If he typed it up and turned it in to his 201 writing course, would that be okay?

If this person became a guru and an expert in energy policy from his viral podcast, would we be in the best of hands?

For folks who make their living from their creativity and intellectual work... when people appropriate it for their own purposes without credit or context and without the appropriate credit given and fees paid... it is a threat to them that will fight for.

There is always a price to pay for anything. When something appears to be 'free' there is ALWAYS a catch. This isn't about open mindedness, this is about a new economic model... in most cases, most of us are simply consumers. When work is posted on youtube, a poster's role may be changing from consumer to producer depending on the makeup of the video. When we become producers our roles, responsibilities and rights change dramatically.

My last example: if you ever watch those shows like overhaulin, trucks, muscle car etc where a project vehicle is modified radically for a lucky person.... Those cars usually don't return to the customer for months and months and months after the show because of all the tests and procedures that have to be done to make sure that it is safe for the person to drive.

likewise, I can weld and wrench on my project truck or write custom applications or fab stuff for myself and a few friends and have a blast... but, if I try to provide it to the public... I have a whole new host of tests and vetting to do before I can do that.

If the 'thing' is important enough and the creator of the thing believes in it enough... they'll go through the procedures (in this 15.00 worth of registration) to get it right and get it out legally.

If a producer keeps it to his friends and on a local basis, no trouble. If a producer takes it to a potentially wider market, you are a vendor and play by those rules.

People who don't want to do those things will call them names and say the world has changed. Essentially, they are saying 'I want to have consumer rules for my production' and that may come to pass, I'm certainly open to that! I'd like to play by the same rules! Currently, it is a very weak claim that does not stand in a court of law... Soda, I think you should sue and create the precedence that 'brings the man down'! You go girl!

EagleLady
04-11-2010, 07:59 PM
You seem to think someone posting a harmless video on Youtube is committing a crime. It's not a crime to want to pay tribute to said Artist with a video!

sodascouts
04-11-2010, 08:26 PM
The law is such a mutable thing and the current "rules" so ill-defined that anyone attempting to take a rigid, black-and-white stance on the issue at this point will probably find himself with an ulcer before it's all said and done.

The internet and the technology of digital media have changed the world. You can scream for it to stop and waste your time grabbing at the shirts of the people running past you, or you can accept the new reality and figure out a way to make it work for you. It's your choice.

bernie's bender
04-11-2010, 09:30 PM
The law is such a mutable thing and the current "rules" so ill-defined that anyone attempting to take a rigid, black-and-white stance on the issue at this point will probably find himself with an ulcer before it's all said and done.

The internet and the technology of digital media have changed the world. You can scream for it to stop and waste your time grabbing at the shirts of the people running past you, or you can accept the new reality and figure out a way to make it work for you. It's your choice.

Folks have often confused mob rule with democracy.

Question: After removing and having your accounts deleted, you eventually moved on to other things, right? Are you still posting your Joe Paterno videos? Did you finally 'give up'?

Eaglelady, I don't believe I've used the word crime or criminal in any of my posts. A person who gets a speeding ticket isn't a criminal, it is just a violation of existing law and not a big deal so long as the guilty party takes care of his/her responsibilities and either pays the fine (admitting responsibility for violating the law) or goes to court and is found not guilty.

Determining harm is part of community standards and deciding who is harmed is something that a court can determine, but that a reasonable person can also 'make sense of'.

Earlier, I gave an example of a person owning land and folks wanting to hunt on it. Because there are folks who would be ignorant as to asking to hunt prior to actually hunting, it is a requirement in most states that a land owner MUST POST no hunting signs, failing to do so can be interpreted as tacit permission. To a reasonable person, this seems pretty silly and stupid, most of us have enough respect for other people's property that we wouldn't just assume we could trespass without asking permission. But, there are those who say, "nobody said I couldn't, so I can."

When folks make tribute video with video or pictures shot by people who make their living taking pictures and who get paid from selling their pictures and video and when people take songs that they love but do not belong to them to re-use or re-sell... they may do it as an act of love. But, if the 'tribute' is allowed without permission, when the artist decides to try to defend their ownership against someone who is using it for purposes other than a 'tribute' the rights to the owner are diminished because they have not been valuing their ownership and have not enforced their rights. Not enforcing your rights is demonstration enough of the court to rule in favor of the person using the work without rights.

So, the intention can be good, but the effect on the artist can be really bad.

Take Henley's case against Devore. If Henley had not been vigorous in his defense of misuse of his property, when Devore used Henley's work essentially against him, Devore's defense could have simply been the precedent that Henley had been allowing it to happen and it had the appearance of being okay. (in other words, not posted "no hunting" therefore, okay to hunt.)

Again, the argument that 'everyone is doing it' is a logical fallacy, I know there are several teachers and parents here... it is effectively "but, mom!, all the other kids get to do it."

You can claim the law is mutable and as they say in poker, I 'call'.

If you think so, why not adjudicate your Paterno/Stevie Nicks video. If you are in the right, you'll prevail, right? To date, it appears that you folded when called by the authorities... why not test it?

There is irony in making a tribute that actually harms the artists in enforcing their rights to their work. Assuming that it is harmless, why would artists be so desperate to defend their rights? Why would we, the fans, be hassling the very artists who we love and respect? They have brought so much good to us for such a small price (cd's, records etc) and yet, when they want to protect their way of earning a living, we support the convenience of trampling their work for our harmless tributes... and our defense ends up being 'it is the new world artists, get used to it.' or, 'everyone else is doing it, why not us?'

I think we stake out the ground we each feel comfortable standing upon. We each make our own choices.

Ive always been a dreamer
04-11-2010, 09:53 PM
This has been an interesting discussion and, it only underscores that this is a very complex problem that none of us here are capable of solving. As I said before, I can see very valid arguments on both sides of this issue. Soda, I agree with what you say about artist needing to figure out how to make technology work for them, but bender also makes a very valid point about non-enforcement being viewed as permission. I don’t think there is any question that some of these issues are going to have to be litigated, and the full impact of the internet on copyright laws may not be truly realized for years to come. But, to me, it is important that we go through the process. In the meantime, those on opposite sides of the issue can, hopefully, all stay open-minded and just agree to disagree.

sodascouts
04-11-2010, 10:11 PM
True, dreamer. And I think sometimes it's hard for folks to see things from another's perspective.

But the law IS mutable. Ask the justices on the Supreme Court, who change the law on a regular basis. The problem is that most of us regular folks can't go into court to prove our points. That's why threatening people with lawsuits is so effective. Even if we win, we might go broke in the process. It's unfortunate that the courts have become a weapon of the wealthy and powerful used to intimidate the little guy, but it's a sad reality nonetheless.

bernie's bender
04-11-2010, 10:48 PM
True, dreamer. And I think sometimes it's hard for folks to see things from another's perspective.

But the law IS mutable. Ask the justices on the Supreme Court, who change the law on a regular basis. The problem is that most of us regular folks can't go into court to prove our points. That's why threatening people with lawsuits is so effective. Even if we win, we might go broke in the process. It's unfortunate that the courts have become a weapon of the wealthy and powerful used to intimidate the little guy, but it's a sad reality nonetheless.

The irony here is that you are effectively arguing that the law is immutable since you don't think that the 'little guy' has real access to the mechanism.

By turns, I am effectively saying that while it may be mutable, at this point, The Eagles and their agents are acting within existing law.

The obvious fact (which you state very effectively) is that millions of people ignore the law (in essence following the old MLK line of "there are two kinds of laws: just laws and unjust laws and unjust laws are no kind of law at all.")

When folks go to court (thus far) the existing copyright and ownership laws appear to be holding. But, your point that many people don't like the existing laws is well made....

Statistically, we are mostly consumptive in this world. Very few people make things or create things. Most of us buy things that are from other people's imaginations and creativity. There are more people who WOULD BE against any law stopping them from creating 'hybrids' (hybrids = taking other people's work, remixing, mashing, organizing) and calling them creations.

There are parts of rap music (specifically 'sampling') that have gotten lots of criticism for taking key elements of existing songs and then 'rapping' over them. Those cases were had and the rappers were compelled to pay the original artists. In the beginning of that fight, the rappers were appalled that the original artists would demand what they saw as their due. "It is a tribute" "We love those guys!" "How could they not want to be sampled?" "This is just the music companies wanting to get richer"

The same arguments we see here.

For my livelihood, I work in the technology industry. I have had and have friends who have had people rip me off. Industrial espionage and outright theft have visited me and in some cases, I've won and in some I have lost.

I actually have an intellectual property attorney, this is stuff that I know first hand. There are things that I have worked on that most of you have used. In my family, I've watched as several inventions that my dad came up with got 'knocked off' and taken from him from people who were just harvesting other people's ideas and I've seen things my brother has created in the sporting goods industry get completely ripped off. I've seen my mom be a nice old lady and allow the neighbors to use part of her property to load and unload equipment to harvest fruit in their orchards and later to see her sued because she'd allowed an apparent easement... and lose AND have to pay to pave the road!

There is a final philosophical question of which is worse: the harm that people do willingly or the harm they do through ignorance and not knowing and assuming their level of knowledge is adequate for the position they hold?

Lots of people think that they know what the actual issues are and the ramifications of their actions, when, in fact, they haven't spent thousands of dollars either defending their property or fighting to keep something they created instead of letting virtual carpetbaggers come in and steal it from them.

Like so many other things of late, the very people who should be supporting one side, are attracted to another.

sodascouts
04-11-2010, 11:56 PM
you are effectively arguing that the law is immutable since you don't think that the 'little guy' has real access to the mechanism.Huh? The law is mutable because it can be changed. Whether or not it can be changed by the "little guy" is irrelevant with regard to mutability. With regard to fairness... well, that's another matter.

This debate is not "the creative people vs. the people who aren't creative." Heck, I'm a creative person myself, so it's not as if I don't understand that aspect.... but there's a bigger picture here, gray areas that need to be recognized.

There is a reason why the actions of Cass County Music and the big record companies are garnering such ill will among so many people. You can say it's because everyone is vain, ignorant, lazy, etc., but that dismisses hundreds of millions of people - not only the uploaders but the people who watch the uploads and thus perpetuate them. Something more is going on here - and until that reality is confronted, these problems will not go away.

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 01:11 AM
Huh? The law is mutable because it can be changed. Whether or not it can be changed by the "little guy" is irrelevant with regard to mutability. With regard to fairness... well, that's another matter.

This debate is not "the creative people vs. the people who aren't creative." Heck, I'm a creative person myself, so it's not as if I don't understand that aspect.... but there's a bigger picture here, gray areas that need to be recognized.

There is a reason why the actions of Cass County Music and the big record companies are garnering such ill will among so many people. You can say it's because everyone is vain, ignorant, lazy, etc., but that dismisses hundreds of millions of people - not only the uploaders but the people who watch the uploads and thus perpetuate them. Something more is going on here - and until that reality is confronted, these problems will not go away.

if it is only mutable by only a few and not by you... it isn't mutable for you.

it is absolutely the rights of the creative who make things that people want vs. the consumer who sees it as an entitlement to take a product they obtained as a consumer and use it in ways that the original terms did not provide for. That is precisely the issue.

that is the reality that should be confronted. A couple of years ago, I read a huge debate between some musician/songwriter friends and a young man who told all of them they were dinosaurs and stupid for being against piracy. That young man ended up coming to the united states and getting a job in Nashville and he released a series of guitar lessons...

They were pirated. He went crazy. He was so angry that someone would steal his work and GIVE IT AWAY and he was furious to find out that some guys were selling it!

People will spin this issue in a ton of different ways... if you don't think this is the consumer vs. the artist, you've got it wrong. It is difficult because both sides need each other... but stealing is stealing is stealing. You can call it what you want, but if it isn't yours to use, it is stealing and it isn't right.

Every single one of my friends who actually makes something of value does not dig the fans stealing their work. If you think that I'm dismissing millions of people, if they are stealing, they need to not sugar coat it and pretend it is anything other than what it is.

People who steal from other people may do it out of malice, but it is more likely they do it because they don't know the law (ignorance,) don't care (lazy) and somehow want a piece of the spotlight created by the original artist and feel entitled to it because they are a fan (vain.)

I sense that you are a creative person, that is why it is so curious that your position would appear to be so counter and so at odds with the things you care about... If I am adamant about my position, it is because it is real to me. I am someone who has been ripped off, and I have lots of friends who rely on their work for their living...

To me and the artists I know... the debate is very much "Why are people stealing from me who say they love my work? Why aren't they willing to follow the agreement we had as creative selling to consumer?

Cass County is the agent of the artists who want some protection... they are easy to vilify, but the artist needs someone to protect their interest, because if they don't protect themselves, their interest will be lost.

If you think the Eagles wouldn't agree with me, you should ask them.

MikeA
04-12-2010, 07:36 AM
Analogy is a slippery weapon Bernie.

We've covered this before, but I have a hard time parallelling "hunting on private property" which is destructive and provided tangible benefit (food) for he who was doing the hunting, and someone humming, singing or maybe playing a song created by someone else when that person had no intent of profiting by that action.

Nor do I see anything but benefit to the artist who created that music unless the person benefits tangibly from the performance and I agree that if there is profit, then the original artist should receive his due in the form of royalties or some fee permitting the plagerizer to profit from it.

It seems that the entire point being debated here is THEFT. I fully endorse the creative persons right to profit from his or her creativity by packaging and selling his or her product and not have it stolen by some other less creative person who does not have the integrity to leave it alone and come up with their own product to be packaged and sold.

If I buy a book at a book store, read it, enjoy it so much that I let my good friend borrow it and read it, is that the same issue? Should each friend or relative who read that book that I bought be held accountable because they didn't go to the book store and purchase that book?

Probably. I suppose that if the law is that black and white, then we can say that the only correct way to behave is to buy that book, read it, put it into a fireproof safe and allow no one to even look at the cover. Heck, you shouldn't even be telling anyone about the book because to do so would be revealing Intellectual Secrets of the author even though telling someone about that book might encourage them to go out and buy it themselves.

Now, exactly how does the above example differ in any way from someone who bought that book, read it, enjoyed it so much that they sat down at a word processor and typed the entire book into softcopy and uploaded it to the Internet for anyone to download for free? In that case, the person who initially bought the book wasn't "SELLING" it, yet making it available to the masses without charge WAS depriving the author of profit because the masses who downloaded and read that book for free instead of paying for it at the bookstore, probably are not going to go to the store and buy it.

(Well, I do if I get hold of the book from someone and read it and like it, I will most likely go on a mission to find and buy everything that author has written....examples of that are the complete works of Marion Zimmer Bradley, Azimov, Heinlein, Piers Anthony, and L'Amour. Each one of those collections started out by me reading a book belonging to someone else but resulted in me buying the complete collection simply because I liked one book someone loaned me. But that's just ME. Most people are not that obsessive.)

I doubt seriously that any court in the land would entertain the thought of prosecutting that person who loaned a book to a friend to read (or that they would prosecute the person who borrowed the book and read it). Yet technically, there is no difference between the two instances is there?

What it boils down to is a matter of DEGREE. With music, I see it in a similar vein. It doesn't "stand on all fours" but is very similar to the example with the books. I can't see any difference in someone buying an Album and playing it for friends at home and someone buying a book and letting someone else read it.

Technically, I suppose that the person owning the Album should have insured that there was no chance of anyone else ever hearing the music recorded on THAT PARTICULAR COPY of the album. They should have locked it in that fireproof safe and never allowed anyone who had not purchased that album listen to it.

Yet, it would seem that letting friends listen to that music at home is okay.

However, playing that Album or Cuts from that Album on radio or in a Disco (perish the though of DISCO! That should be illegal whether fees are paid or not! <LOL>) without paying fees for doing so IS illegal. I don't think there is any argument on that point. The difference of course, is in the "profit" motive. I do not think that any rational person would disagree about the illegality of making copies of that Album and giving them to friends or relatives. God forbid that they make copies and SELL them!

Now all of the above (though pretty silly) still doesn't pertain to the issue I thought this topic started out as being. That point, I thought, was that of someone hearing a song, learning it and playing it and recording their version of it and allowing others to hear it too.

Personally, if I do something like that, you can rest assured that I have no motive of profit. I'm not trying to impress anyone so that they will pay me to have them teach them to play guitar or sing. It is NOT going to improve my resume in any way....performing and music and writing code for mainframe computers have very little in common and if I crudely perform (or do a perfect rendition) of a song, it is in no way going to impact my salary nor will it enhance my "job security." I can't see how that is going to impact the success of the artist nor is it going to decrease the profits the artist can expect.

If that artist is so VAIN that he or she doesn't want anyone to perform that song regardless of the motive, then that is an artist I want nothing to do with and that INCLUDES EAGLES! Good grief, prohibiting me or anyone else from playing "Hotel California" is no different in principle than denying ANYONE the right to hum or sing that song while washing dishes! And singing it while washing dishes is really no different that someone making a video of their performance and posting it on YouTube other than that of the number of people who might witness the performance. More people are going to see it on YouTube than are going to be seeing you or hearing you perform it while washing dishes (at least I would hope so)!

So it boils down to the fact that the objection must be one of Degree. If so, that makes it a non-black-and-white issue. If profit is not the motive of the performer, then to be a black and white issue, one would have to define the number of people who are allowed to witness the performance before it is deemed a violation of the artist's rights.

Wow! If I could go back and relive my life, I think I'd study to be a Lawyer! Nah.....I pretty much like what I've done.

Man, I shouldn't get on the Internet to distract myself at 4:30 in the morning because I couldn't sleep!

TimothyBFan
04-12-2010, 10:43 AM
I had 4 or 5 pages of this thread to get caught up on and as I read, I just got a little angrier with each page. I agree about the whole profit thing, I really do. But I just want to be able to pull up a video (which usually isn't that great of quality on YouTube anyways, let's face it!) and watch it. I really don't understand how that harms anyone.

And again, I'm with whoever wondered what gives CCM the right to take down all Eagles solo works.

I don't say things as eloquently as some of you here, I just get angry and ramble on, making little sense. Mike had I wanted to put my thoughts into words, I wish I could say it like you just did! Spot on my friend!!!! :thumbsup:

I think some artist and their representatives (all hundreds of them) need to Get Over It and themselves, and let the "little people" enjoy their music and show their appreciation. I do believe it works both ways and when you act like a "brute", it can backfire on you also! Food for thought!

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 10:58 AM
Mike,

if you buy a book and lend it to a friend... no problem. If you buy a book and reprint it for 1 million people and become an 'important person' with 3 million hits and there is advertising on every single page for which someone gets paid, it is a problem.

The math is the thing. lending to a friend, no problem. Sharing to anyone else in the world, problem. Make sense?

Playing hotel california in your living room for friends... no problem. humming it in the kitchen, no problem. Playing it in a bar for money, bar pays the fee.

reproducing it and putting it on the internet for millions of people to enjoy and benefit from without paying 15.00 fee, problem. 15 bucks to entertain the world legally seems like a small price, right?

Is 15.00 too much to be in accord with the laws and with your favorite songwriters and bands?

btw, CCM has the right like any citizen or group to report when folks are breaking the law... they do it for a fee which is paid by artists to protect the rights of the artist.

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 11:11 AM
Mike said: "Personally, if I do something like that, you can rest assured that I have no motive of profit. I'm not trying to impress anyone so that they will pay me to have them teach them to play guitar or sing. It is NOT going to improve my resume in any way....performing and music and writing code for mainframe computers have very little in common and if I crudely perform (or do a perfect rendition) of a song, it is in no way going to impact my salary nor will it enhance my "job security." I can't see how that is going to impact the success of the artist nor is it going to decrease the profits the artist can expect."

Mike,

When you post songs here and receive praise, does it benefit you? I think it does. It feels good, right? If you chose a public domain song, would it get the same response? Is the 'good feeling' you get from hearing from forum members telling you 'good job' worth anything to you? What is it worth in dollars?

Talent is talent. whether that is hitting a baseball, doing accounting, coding software, playing guitar, acting in a scene, performing heart surgery... the folks with the most talent, who can do things few others can, generally can command a higher price for their talent than can folks who have talent in lesser measure. So, someone who writes songs is comparable to a computer programmer in the marketplace.

If someone pirates a copy of Adobe Photoshop and puts it up on the internet for anyone to download and provides the unlock code... most of us would see that as theft. It is the intellectual property and the reflection of talent of that group of coders who made that. The people who steal it say "it costs too much" "I don't use it that often" "information wants to be free" and other things like that. Does it sound familiar? Sure it does. Psychologists call it rationalization.

People rationalize all the time to explain away things that they don't want to admit about their actions. The net result is: You like the fun and good feeling of not only recording songs, but songs from your heroes and the added bonus is sharing them to a largely unknown audience (the world) and getting some kudos which make you feel good. But, you are unwilling to pay the fee for the good feeling which amounts to 15.00.

I think I am understanding your position.

EagleLady
04-12-2010, 11:21 AM
Comparing watching a video on Youtube to breaking the law is ludicrous and it seems Don wants to alienate more fans.

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 11:36 AM
Comparing watching a video on Youtube to breaking the law is ludicrous and it seems Don wants to alienate more fans.

not watching a video, posting a video.

posting things that aren't ours to post is against the law.

EagleLady
04-12-2010, 11:47 AM
You must be from the time one didn't need Youtube, but You and Don are making it seem like Youtube is the enemy and it's not. And you take joy away from something one puts extremely hard work in.

sodascouts
04-12-2010, 12:15 PM
not watching a video, posting a video.


So it's OK to watch a "stolen" video on YouTube, take pleasure from it, then condemn the person who posted it?

Sounds like rationalization to me.... or at the very least, hypocrisy.

The RIAA has prosecuted people who downloaded commercially available music for free, even though they didn't upload it. Streaming is temporary downloading.

I personally don't think it's wrong to watch YouTube videos (obviously) but if one takes the position that it's illegal to upload certain videos, it leads naturally to the position that it's illegal to download (ie., view) them.

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 12:24 PM
You must be from the time one didn't need Youtube, but You and Don are making it seem like Youtube is the enemy and it's not. And you take joy away from something one puts extremely hard work in.

I don't think anyone NEEDS youtube. Most of us like it a lot, but it is like television, we don't need it, we just like it.

Youtube is a company that is working to make a profit. It is a business.

I enjoy youtube as much as anyone, but I also recognize that what I post needs to be my work, my resources or I need to license it. Licensing material is inexpensive and easy.

Let's say you really like your local market. No, you love your local market. You've been a fan of the store since you were a little kid. To pay tribute, you go in to the store and steal some eggs, cake mix and frosting, go home, spend hours and hours and hours making a beautiful cake which, dutifully, you take to the store owner and beam at him while you present the cake to him.

He is in a tough spot.

On one hand, he appreciates that you love his store and took the time to make a cake for him. On the other, you stole from him actually whittling away at his earnings. The real problem he sees is that if he doesn't make sure that you know that you stole, you and others may continue to do so which eventually will make it very hard for him to stay in business at all.

I think what the store owner is asking is: if you would just pay for the mix, eggs and frosting, we could all have a healthy, happy relationship without the complications. But, if the 'happy customer' gets mad when the store owner points out that they took something without paying, puts hands on hips and says, "I have loved this store and made this cake as a tribute and all you do is call me thief" in a petulant rage... I think the problems run much deeper.

sodascouts
04-12-2010, 12:28 PM
I sense that you are a creative person, that is why it is so curious that your position would appear to be so counter and so at odds with the things you care about... If I am adamant about my position, it is because it is real to me. I am someone who has been ripped off, and I have lots of friends who rely on their work for their living...

If I truly thought that people strumming covers in their bedroom and uploading it to YouTube was stealing from the original artist, I would be in your camp... but I don't believe that. I argue passionately about it because I feel that CCM and the record companies are hurting the little guy and it upsets me. I'm a "little guy" too.

With regard to your example above, why is it OK to eat a piece of that cake and then condemn the person who cooked it? That's what you do when you enjoy those videos on YouTube. (I should note that I do not concede that the videos are stealing, but I am working within the boundaries of your analogy even though I disagree with its basic premise.)

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 12:53 PM
If I truly thought that people strumming covers in their bedroom and uploading it to YouTube was stealing from the original artist, I would be in your camp... but I don't believe that. I argue passionately about it because I feel that CCM and the record companies are hurting the little guy and it upsets me. I'm a "little guy" too.

With regard to your example above, why is it OK to eat a piece of that cake and then condemn the person who cooked it? That's what you do when you enjoy those videos on YouTube.

It isn't an issue of faith. It is a legal issue. So long as folks are willing to admit that they are in violation of existing law and that they understand that they are stealing under the current law... I stop there. Once folks see and admit what they are doing, then it is up to them. I think most people just don't understand that they are violating existing law. If, once they understand what they are doing and continue to do it, I am done trying to explain or get them to see... then, it is their personal sense of right and wrong that govern them, not mine.

The law is clear on these issues. You limited your example to someone strumming their guitar, but we all know it goes much farther than that, but even at your example, if the 'little guy' could license the song for 15.00 and be legal.... why wouldn't he/she?

As for the 'guilty eating the cake', I think you are assuming too much at least about me and I think you'd be incorrect. First, if I know something is pirated and stolen, I would not participate. Sometimes it is hard to know which things have been licensed and which haven't. Then, it is the responsibility of the producer and youtube to police it... at this point, there are a lot of pirates and a lot of confusion about what is legal. But, that will sort.

The things I most enjoy on youtube are home made things made by regular people but completely their work.

But, even if I were the worst youtube pirate, posting stolen things all day and watching stolen work all day... that wouldn't change what any other individual does. If I were the worst hypocrite and stealer of music, my theft doesn't change what you or anyone else might do in one bit. In the end, (and I know our moms told us this) two wrongs don't make it right, and just because the other kids are doing it, doesn't make it legal or right.

I have made copies of out of print records for people before. Other than trying to track down a copy at a used record store or on ebay, or when I have found the rare record, I HAVE copied it for someone who I knew would love it. But, I also found a cd by that same artist that was still for sale and bought that in its stead (even when I already owned a copy) just so that I could make it right in my own mind. It was still not exactly right, but it was a 'best effort'... which is the standard I hold myself to.

So, if folks are cognizant of the law and that they are violating it as it is currently written and still choose to do what they do, I have no comment. My only concern is that folks understand that they are doing something that is not permitted by current law. No moral judgement, no beliefs, none of that... the morality trip is our own to take... the legal trip is just part of the social contract we agree to as citizens.

MikeA
04-12-2010, 01:18 PM
B.B.:

I think the only disagreement I have with your position (and I really don't argue that you are wrong....it is the whole premise I totally disagree with). is that matter of degree.

I can't see any legal difference in playing a song that everyone knows for one friend and posting it on YouTube to be heard by millions. The magnitude of the audience is all that defines the two scenarios.

Understand me, I am NOT talking about copying a Cut from an album and distributing it.

But maybe you are right. Maybe a group or a songwriter should hope never to become so popular that folks would want to play or sing their songs just for the heck of it.

I think that maybe it is that attitude of trying to insure that no one ever sings their songs by policing the practice so severely that brought about a lot of activity back in Kansas during the Prohibition. It didn't stop people from drinking, it just made a lot of people rich by forcing them to meet the demands of the public ILLEGALLY. I think that's happening now.

Okay, you want to cover the song...pay them $15 and sell the hell out of it if you can...that's okay, as long as the songwriter gets his portion of that $15. If he doesn't get it, he'll starve. I can understand that. I can understand that that $15 is just extracting every penny that they can out of what they do....any real money is going to be made if that version of the song becomes commercially successful to the playgerizer and the original artist collects royalties from it.

And by the way, I'm not too concerned about anything I post here in the form of a recording bring down any legal action....the artist would have a heck of a time proving that anything I did resembled enough anything THEY did to stand up as plagerism <LOL>.

sodascouts
04-12-2010, 01:37 PM
It isn't an issue of faith. It is a legal issue. So long as folks are willing to admit that they are in violation of existing law and that they understand that they are stealing under the current law... I stop there.


I have made copies of out of print records for people before.But under your rigid definition... this is illegal.

Like Mike said, it is a matter of degree. I don't think anyone contests that songwriters should receive their share of profits of people who benefit from their music financially. However, when it goes beyond that to "you should not only pay me when you buy the recorded music, pay me for the sheet music, pay me when you play the song professionally (all legitimate), you should pay me $15 more for each video you upload that contains a portion of one of my songs despite the fact that your only 'profit' is a good feeling." It feels like unreasonable, insatiable greed, and I think it's going beyond the boundaries of what is protected by law. Like "Hmm, maybe we can get some money out of 'em for that too...let's go for it, they'll probably fold when we throw our lawyers at 'em..." That's why we have "fair use" laws - to prevent that kind of thing.

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 01:46 PM
Mike,

Just to be clear, there is no 'heat' to my explanations of why folks take the stance they do. The concept of an 'implied easement' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement#Implied_and_express_easement) is the easiest way to understand why so many use the heavy hand. It is the idea that if you let one person use it for free and without express permission, it is then presumed free.

That slippery slope is one that owners of real property (land) have had to fight for centuries. The songwriters, record companies etc have found that if they aren't super vigilant they lose their rights.

One thing that is interesting to me is that youtube does take down videos and songs... and people like the Eagles do tell people to pull things down. Why would they do that? I've heard some of those guys speak, they seem like thoughtful, intelligent people. Henley can be brusque, but he doesn't strike me as some evil corporate cartoon figure.... why would they be so adamant? It may be that they know their business and what is at stake for them and their families.

For me, I work in a corporate environment, but before I started work I had my lawyers meet with the companies lawyers to stake out what was mine and what was theirs. It had to be written up and, frankly, it had to be explained to me very slowly and carefully so that I would know.

When we contracted musicians for a product we worked on, we did specific legal things with the musicians and creators so that they would get paid, but that consumers of the product could use the musical output in commercial and non commercial settings and be legal without licensing because the license for the music they would produce was embedded in the product...

I'd love for you or me to write a song that people would hum. All the hassles that would come with it would be worth it. A friend of mine (now deceased) wrote "Daydream Believer". It was a hit several times and then lately, it became a 'hit' again for having ebay use it in their commercials... it really helped his wife and family through some challenging economic times... if he hadn't protected his rights... that money would not have gone to the person who spent those 10K plus hours playing guitar and singing.... it would have gone elsewhere.

With Tax time looming, I feel the burden of doing work. I have to pay taxes quarterly, but, I don't complain. When I was a teacher in eastern Kentucky, I don't think I ever had to pay taxes. I didn't make much money at all... today, I have the good fortune to have to pay a bunch to the tax man... and I don't mind. I do have opinions about how I'd like it spent, but I get to vote and I do my best with what I can when I pull the handle.

I have yet to meet a songwriter who has had his work recorded who did not want his due on his work. When Richard Penniman wrote Whomp Bomp a Lou Bomp and barely got paid when Pat Boone covered it and sold millions... and Pat got to be on the shows when Richard brought the song authenticity and life... it nearly killed Richard. He fought for his place (and had to) and for his money... and we could easily hate on the evil record executives who ripped him off... but, now the taking is in piracy and the irony and pain of it is for the artist, that it is frequently the ardent fan doing the most harm.

Folks have gotten pretty hardened views about this type of issue... what is strange is that most of the time, they haven't actually experienced it (being ripped off) or refuse to make the connection.

I have a friend who is a pretty famous songwriter (he has written songs that most people would know for artists like Bonnie Raitt and Leroy Parnell) and I asked him a question about a song of his and he told me a story about how his 'biggest' fan posted the song on you tube and in a forum and that his sales month over month decreased until he complained about it to the fan. The fan got mad and said he was ungrateful and a dick.

This guy is not rich by any means... he lives in a 3 bedroom 2 bath tract house in Nashville...

When it is real for people they will see it. A big artist like the Eagles and Don Henley can afford to be 'arrow catchers' for the smaller artists... they can afford to fight and are willing to lose a few fans in the interest of making things fair for the artist.

TimothyBFan
04-12-2010, 01:56 PM
you should pay me $15 more for each video you upload that contains a portion of one of my songs despite the fact that your only 'profit' is a good feeling."

This reminds me of the story that is posted somewhere on here about the 14 year old girl that sang an Eagles song and they took her video down and threatened her with cancellation of her account. She was devastated! Seriously---I think they should feel flattered instead of vindictive! What harm was she doing? But I just know they or whoever needs that $15!


It feels like unreasonable, insatiable greed, and I think it's going beyond the boundaries of what is protected by law. That's why we have "fair use" laws.

And I believe that is the bottom line!! The Eagles and company are sooooo very hard at work at doing this and other artist just let it slide. Why is that? I think we all really know. I, for one, have a lot of respect for those artist that let it slide and truly believe they know a true fan. I fear that the Eagles are alienating many a fan doing this to this degree. I know I get more disillusioned by this as I see more and more stories regarding it. They've made it perfectly clear what the most important thing is and I don't believe it's their fans unless they are shelling out mega amounts of money for concert tickets (even then they dictate whether I should stand or sit during the concert), memoribilia, videos, etc....

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 02:00 PM
But under your rigid definition... this is illegal.

not my definition. the definition of the law as it stands. it is clear if you read it.

yes. I stated that in my post. my remediation is a 'best effort' which is to buy an existing copy of an in print cd and not use it.

This does not make it legal, but for me, it is a step in the right direction.

Again, if the purpose of this is to imply that I am judging morality, it would be mistaken. My purpose is to make clear that you see what the law says and how it is enforced. If you can accept what the law says and understand it (even if you completely disagree with it) I have no quibble. Your choices after that are your own to determine the morality, not mine.

So, if the goal is to question my personal actions, have at it. I think I have a clear history of following the law. In the instances (like when I made a copy of a long lost jack tempchin record that is almost impossible to find for you) I bought a copy of one of Jack's cd's that I already owned and 86'd it.

The advantage to Jack is that had I bought a used record (or you had) Jack gets nothing (completely legal)... this way, my used record store got paid and Jack got paid, I have the record, you have the mp3's... no one left in the lurch. Is it completely legal? No it is not. Would I have done it legally if it were doable at the time? You bet.

There are a ton of ways to do things legally, why not do them?

If I get stuck in a situation (like the Jack Tempchin record) I try to see all sides and how I can make it fair and even.

Again, I have little interest in participating in ad hominem stuff... perfect people are really hard to find and I'd certainly not describe myself in that fashion.... the law isn't as grey as folks would have you think. writing a song is creating a piece of property. there is no debate about that. taking someone's property without permission or using the property in a manner that was not agreed upon is not legal.

this is why youtube pulls down videos and because folks have chosen to ignore the laws as written, folks like cass creek have a business to track it down and police it. they wouldn't do it if they couldn't.

it may be that the world will say to the artists "we do not think your music has value, it is free, and we can do what we want with it." when that day comes, it may be that artists will need to pursue other lines of work to feed families and support themselves as being an artist will no longer be a vocation. I will be sorry when that day comes... and I will not choose to participate in bringing it to the fore.

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 02:09 PM
Fair Use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)

When you read about it and learn about it... you realize that the word "fair" is not as subjective as we might think....

As for the 15.00 being about insatiable greed (hyperbole much?)...

it is about respect for the author.


Are there other issues that need addressing? (ticket prices, cd prices, the music business in general... etc) Yes, I think they all need changes and improvements. But things like the Clear Channel monopoly need their own adjudication. Lumping all of it into one vat of discontent does not make it better. If we want changes to fair use, then we should ask for the change.

I've noted several anecdotal incidents where 'performers' had to pull videos down and almost had their 'free' accounts terminated. Wow! that is really nothing, right? They still have their personal copy of their performance, right? They weren't harmed physically or financially... they just had their video returned to the place where it was 'fair use'....

How does that make them wrong or bad?

sodascouts
04-12-2010, 02:20 PM
I think in the end this is all about money, isn't it? That saddens me.

$15 for one song, paid again and again and again each time you put up a new video... yeah, it adds up and it does seem greedy since they've already been paid and the person isn't using their music for profit, when it's somebody like Mike playing a cover at home, for instance. It seems like a money grab.

Bender, I'm not trying to make it "personal." It's true that I do feel some of what you are saying is hypocritical and some of your arguments are flawed - and early on you were making moral judgments, and some of your language still does, which hurt my feelings - but I have nothing against you personally. You are well-spoken and intelligent, and I realize you have good intentions and are simply trying to look out for your best interests and the best interests of those like you.

I just believe you aren't seeing some important sides of the issue and that it's not as black-and-white as you think.

However, perhaps I should just accept that we will disagree on this rather than going on and on about it, eh?

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 02:43 PM
I think in the end this is all about money, isn't it? That saddens me.

$15 for one song, paid again and again and again each time you put up a new video... yeah, it adds up and it does seem greedy since they've already been paid and the person isn't using their music for profit, when it's somebody like Mike playing a cover at home, for instance. It seems like a money grab. You're affluent so it doesn't seem like so much to you, I guess.

Bender, I'm not trying to make it "personal." It's true that I do feel some of what you are saying is hypocritical and some of your arguments are flawed - and early on you were making moral judgments, and some of your language still does, which hurt my feelings - but I have nothing against you personally. You are well-spoken and intelligent, and I realize you have good intentions and are simply trying to look out for your bests interests and the best interests of those like you.

I just believe you aren't seeing some important sides of the issue and that it's not as black-and-white as you think.

However, perhaps I should just accept that we will disagree on this rather than going on and on about it, eh?

I don't think it is solely about money at all. I think it is about value and respect. When people cannot or will not see the black and white parts of an issue, a point is reached where they are either being dishonest or they are fooling themselves. I have too much respect for people to not make clear what I see and at least give them an opportunity to explain/see.

My position about this stuff is considered and I don't actually see myself as hypocritical at all. I pay fees all the time for use. I posted some board recordings of songs that were not mine here and paid the money. To me, it is a gesture of respect.

I've spent enough time with attorneys for work stuff and creative stuff that the topic itself has complexity, but the fundamentals are simple enough that the waters of fair use can be navigated by a regular person.

Some youtube videos get 5 views and some get 500K. There is really no way to know any more than two guys open hot dog stands, one gets tons of business, the other goes home.... the best effort is to be covered.

I choose not to be cynical and see everything as acquisitive and insatiable greed. If my daughter records a song and I'm gonna play proud papa and we post it on the internet... the 15.00 will be a no brainer and I'll be entitled to rights to the song.

You may have more experience with copyright and fair use. I've only been involved with it at work, on products from my own company and with the corporation I currently work for and as a songwriter/performer and in developing a portal for an educational company. There were definitely some complications in gaining rights to pictures, videos, text etc.. but the principles were almost always the 4 basic components.

In every single case, the crux was in the scope.

My intention was never to hurt your feelings, you are an influential person here and I think many take their cues from you as you are a savvy, intelligent person. The confidence you seem to have in holding your position has the responsibility of being right. I don't know how correct you really think your position is, but, because of that, I think it only fair to make sure both sides are heard... and as I said, folks are free agents to go and do whatever they please, I just want them to go and do knowing the realities of their choices.

If youtube could tell the record companies to 'ram it', I think they would. Their ad sales would spiral if they could put whatever they wanted on without recourse. But, they are aware of the law and realize that if they want to keep their store open... they need to participate in the democracy by abiding by its laws.

MikeA
04-12-2010, 04:29 PM
I guess BB that you and come from such different positions on the issue. You are coming at it from a professional's position and deal with covering other people's work with the intent of selling your musical worth as your Profession demands. I would feel the same way were I coming from that platform.

Believe me. I do understand your position. If I were a Professional and encountered situations in which in order to satisfy an audience whose cover charges paid my salary, I needed to cover a Top-40 hit written and performed by someone else, I would knock the doors down to insure that I did the "right thing"..."the legal thing" by paying the $15 fee. And if by some miracle, that song ended up being recorded by me and making me millions, I'd want to be sure that the creator of that material got every penny in royalties that my recording generated. That original artist very rightfully desrves it.

And honestly, I don't have any compulsion at all right now to share with the original artist any profits from anything I might play. 10% OF NOTHING is still nothing so I offer up 50% and pay it willingly.

You will not find me posting any of my "performances" on YouTube. You might find examples of it posted for a friend or friends to listen to if they wish. But I would never dream of trying to make a commercial venture of it. For me, it is a hobby...a challenge.

Your thoughts have cast enough doubt on the legality of even THINKING about a song created by a musician that I get the feelling there is NO legal use anyone can put to something they have purchased other than by crawling under a blanket and listening to it privately.

Seriously, where are these rights of the owners of a piece of recorded material spelled out? I'm talking about the "owner" who purchased a CD or DVD. Where does it say that you can listen to this music and can share it (without copying it) with up to but not in excess of 5 people at a time as long as you do not take any profit from that? How can you not take profit in the pleasure you receive in knowing that most of the listners are enjoying it and are grateful to you for playing it? Where does it say you cannot play that music unless you contact some .com and pay them $15? I'm not saying it isn't there...but I've never seen it. If it doesn't say that, what DOES it say about playing a particular piece of music that clearly belongs to someone else? When can you play it (if you can play it at all legally) and when can't you?

I have seen clear notices that unauthorized reproductions that are subject to legal action. Maybe playing the song and singing it is an unauthorized reproduction...but as far as I know, that's NOT what was intended by that copyright notification. That was meant to warn people not to make copies of CDs or magnetic tape recordings of vinyl....or whatever. At least that was my understanding. And if you do validate playing or singing that song under any circumstances, then the dishwasher who sings it while he works is just as guilty as the person who plays it, makes a video of it and places it on YouTube.

If it is wrong, then it must be "objectively" wrong.

I really do not look for praise in music I play. It is not my profession no matter how much I do wish I had the creativity make a profession of it. Or maybe I should say a successful Profession.

If anything, recording what I do is nothing more than gratification to me for the money I've already injected into the business's economy. It lets me listen to it and bask a bit in the knowledge that I gained some skill with an instrument I paid a small fortune for! I am quite sure that the guitar shops and music software industry would not put a disclaimer on all of their merchandise indicating that these instruments and programs are illegal to use unless performing and recording ONLY material that you alone possess the intellectual rights to. And that music industry that now possesses expenditures of mine INCLUDES thousands upon thousands of dollars in purchased vinyl and CD offerings of artists that I sometimes try to emulate in my humble way.

Now, If you want take up programming software for Financial Institutions, I'll help you in any way I can...sharring logic diagrams and working on logical methodology with you until you have a good grasp of it. I'll even go so far as to grant you permission to use anything I am able to teach you about that kind of programming. I cannot give you actual code that I've written because it belongs to me no more than it belongs to you...it belongs to my employer. But I can grant to you the knowledge to use the methodology if you have the tenacity to learn it.

I can do nothing less...you have done virtually the same for me in assisting me with the guitar and I do NOT forget that! I really do appreciate the hints you've given me including the one concerning "Life Of Illusion" and how to play it in the same key but in a different position.

It is pretty clear to me that your experience in the industry has given you a clear cut defiinition of what it legal and what is not. It just isn't quite that clear to me yet. I thank the gods that even if I am wrong my "wrongness" is not going to do any damage to the artists on the receiving end of my error.

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 05:59 PM
that is a great post Mike.

First, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but I've worked with several and some of them were really cool, really nice people...

Most of the fair use stuff is actually common sense. The part that is hard for people is ideas and things that are not 'physical' (like songs or movies)

Having played in bands and recorded and played for people in studios and a little television, live radio etc... and in my youth as a teacher who produced plays... none of this copyright stuff is new, it is just new to millions of people who are suddenly producers of a sort. They usually had no idea what happened in the background, how people got paid, it was all magic to them (or never even considered.)

I have a relative who suffered for years to get into the 'voice over' business. He got a call one day to do a 'one off' ad for a bleach company.... That was in 1979.... The ad still runs today. He gets a residual (payment) each time it plays! It has helped him through some tough times in his career as an actor, voice over guy etc... Webb Wilder had to sue Yahoo to get paid for his signature 'Yahoooooo' on the Yahoo ads.

This is people's business. The extreme stories: Michael Buffer's "lets get ready to rumble®" nets him a million dollars when it is used." Some of us are horrified by that and say 'no way'... but, that line has power in the culture.

At home, you can play your records, cds, dvds, all you want. You can make a copy of them, you can make mixtapes for friends (this was thought to be outside fair use, but was adjudicated differently in the last couple of years.)

For my main band, the band bought an ipod for each member, I am allowed by the itunes license to put purchased songs on as many handhelds as I like... so, I image the ipods for the fellas and away we go.

Recently, we had a member who needed cd's (we're old guys and this guy was a total luddite) so, even though I could just burn him a set of cd's and be within the license.... I decided that the band would rebuy his set (not cheap as we do 174 songs! at a buck a piece)

If you play in bars or at a festivals it is the venue's responsibility to cover the cost of playing other people's material. The Harry Fox folks are everywhere, they don't bug musicians, they bug bar owners...

If you are jamming with friends, no problema. If you make chord sheets for the band, or download them from the internet... here is what we do---> we bought a copy of the 700 song country and 500 song rock fakebooks for each member. It isn't perfect, but it is a pretty good effort.

If a new song comes out and the music isn't available yet (we're doing the Jeff Bridges Fallin' and Flyin') we worked up a chord sheet, and we bought the cd... when the music or songbook comes out, we'll buy a copy... with most of those songs, it is overkill as we use the nashville system and don't even bother with a lead sheet... it is a matter of the singer learning the lyrics.

If I like how a song comes out, I license it. it is 15.00 one time... not bad. If I press up a bunch of cds to sell at gigs, it is a different rate... but easy to follow and you can have the duplicator handle it for you...

it is kind of like the DMV. The law is there to make it fair. Sure, there are cheats on both sides and nobody will be perfect all the time... but, with a clear head and the right intentions, things can be what my grandfather called "even steven."

I was at one of my nephew's gigs awhile back (he's in a band called the Higher... they are on epitaph records) and they are still small, they play all over (europe, US, aus, japan, warped tour etc) but they still man the merch booth and have to help out etc (not millionaires by a long stretch)

Anyway, I was at a pretty big show and while the merch booth was cookin' I saw a guy snag a tshirt and cd off the table and walk off... Hey, I'm a large enough man (6'3" 220) and this is money from my nephew who sleeps in a van about half the time they are on the road... so, I stopped the guy kind of casually and said, "hey, did you forget something?" and he looked very angry and insolent and said, "Hey man, I paid 35.00 to come to this show, the least they can do is give up some merch."

He felt genuinely entitled to the goods! He thought the band OWED HIM!

A couple of weeks ago, I was able (through work) to set up some kids from a local school with the opportunity to be on the John Lennon bus in San Jose. The cool part was that we put the bus at a show the Black eyed peas were doing and as part of some stuff we did with the peas, they agreed to work with the kids...

I actually got a quasi complaint today that the kids felt a little rushed when the Peas came through to help... they only spent 20 or 30 minutes with them.... the kids got to go to the show, tour the sound, recording, live stuff etc... I just apologized...

What all of this has to do with fair use and youtube is this. A person can work his whole life to create one single song that matters. That one song may be the thing that allows that artist to be able to keep creating.

John Stewart is best known for Daydream Believer and Gold. But, if you ask Lindsey Buckingham how he became Lindsey the guitar player... he'll tell you.... John Stewart playing banjo for the Kingston Trio is the genesis of that style. I have some pretty funny Lindsey stories and Stevie stories that could illustrate how important it is to foster artists and support them....

Henley has used his stature and money for lots of causes. He has never been afraid to be counted and he has accepted the criticism that comes with standing for what he believes in. He isn't protecting himself, he's protecting Richard Bowden, Boomer Castleman, JD, Jack Tempchin, Davey Blue the guys who are a little bit in the background but who make so much of the music we love....

Don't be afraid to make music and don't be afraid to share it... just find out what it takes to make sure that folks are supported. Folks are right, 15.00 may not matter to Henley, but it adds up for the songwriters and the smaller artists... and it is money to feed them and their families.

sodascouts
04-12-2010, 06:27 PM
Off topic: RIP John Stewart. Once I got the opportunity to talk to him about his work. I told him that I wished he would provide lyric sheets for his music because I felt like what he had to say was important. He told me he was honored to have a fan like me who cared so much about his music. A great guy.

bernie's bender
04-12-2010, 10:04 PM
Soda, his song database (including chord sheets) is available free of charge and with John's blessing at http://www.chillywinds.com

There is a group of the most rabid fans in the world of John's called Bloodliners (after one of his best songs, California Bloodlines)

John was one of the most interesting people I've ever known. His "loudest folk band in america" was one of the greatest bands I've ever seen... I hitchhiked hundreds of miles to see them play... and the people who saw them would say the same thing.....

Peekaboo
04-15-2010, 02:57 AM
It took nearly a year but my videos from Don's concert at Downstream last May have been removed from youtube. I got an email about it yesterday. The funny thing is that I browsing some stuff on youtube earlier in the day and thought I'd look up my page and see how many hits those videos got. They were still up on there but it was no more than 5 hours later when I got the email. I'm totally surprised about this but at the same time I'm not.

TimothyBFan
04-15-2010, 07:50 AM
I'm sorry Jess--it's always a shame I think! But I have to wonder tho, after a year....what took them so long?

RamboIV
04-17-2010, 06:37 AM
It took nearly a year but my videos from Don's concert at Downstream last May have been removed from youtube. I got an email about it yesterday. ...I'm totally surprised about this but at the same time I'm not.

My youtube page with the Henley concert at the Rosemont Theater in Illinois just got taken down a week ago too. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Henley's youtube goons (Cass Country) spoil all the fun.

sodascouts
04-17-2010, 12:49 PM
Just another hit-and-miss purge.

bernie's bender
04-23-2010, 09:13 PM
Just another hit-and-miss purge.

that sounds like my diet.